UPGRADE OR FULL VERSION

[Leythos]

I'm not one of Kurt's disciples. Agreeing with someone and being their
disciple are two different things. Yaknow, like your favorite web site and
the EULA.

Oh, come on, there are times when I can't tell the two of you apart,
except your not foul and angry most of the time and he is.

 

[kurttrail]

I'm a little saddened to see that so many people, including you,
Michael, completely missed the point. It was satire, but it was also
completely over your head. I won't bother explaining.

Well, one good turn deserves another, and I'll risk being called a
hypocrite for Michael's sake. And remember, Michael and I have been on
opposite sides of the fence for a lot longer than many of ya'll have
posted to this group, and I've been harder and nastier to him than
anybody else.

He once told me that "When you have to explain a joke (and in this case
satire), it didn’t work."

And I love that fact that you think I'm Lurker! ROFL! ;-)

I hadn't noticed your penchant for bestiality until he pointed it out!
;-)

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

Piss off, you little freak. You started throwing "ad hominem" around the
day you read it on your word-of-the-day calendar, and it's the most
polysyllabic word in your stunted little vocabulary. Go hump Kurt's leg.

I think I'm done with all you half-wits.

OK, that's the second time that people have wondered about why I was
laughing out-loud today. Thanks I needed that one too.

 

[Alias]

Oh, heck, come on, if your not one of Kurt's disciples it was dang funny.

I'm not one of Kurt's disciples. Agreeing with someone and being their
disciple are two different things. Yaknow, like your favorite web site and
the EULA.

Alias

 

[Alias]

Piss off, you little freak. You started throwing "ad hominem" around the
day you read it on your word-of-the-day calendar, and it's the most
polysyllabic word in your stunted little vocabulary. Go hump Kurt's leg.

I think I'm done with all you half-wits.

My, my.

Alias

 

[kurttrail]

There goes your button again - can't keep a proper conversation going
to you resort back to your childish manners. I can't really believe
you're more than a kid in high-school, you certainly fall back to
their typical trolling manners.

In other words, Lamethos has no "rational explanation as to why [he]
unrealistically believe that some agreement exists between the End
User and MS that justifies MS's password-protected,
registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA 'New Rules,'" so he picks one word
out of my post to divert from explaining his erroneous opinion.

Thanks for pushing my button again, Lameboy!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

There goes your button again - can't keep a proper conversation going
to you resort back to your childish manners. I can't really believe
you're more than a kid in high-school, you certainly fall back to
their typical trolling manners.

In other words, Lamethos has no "rational explanation as to why [he]
unrealistically believe that some agreement exists between the End
User and MS that justifies MS's password-protected,
registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA 'New Rules,'"

I think I've clearly explained my position a great many times. I've also
explained my position on why I will continue to license products according
to the licensing information available to anyone, not limiting myself to
the EULA. I will not test the validity MS claims or licenses as it costs
more to be part of the test than the licenses.

so he picks one word
out of my post to divert from explaining his erroneous opinion.

Nope, I pointed out how you can't discuss anything with out a childish or
snide part in your reply. Even when I complemented you on not doing it
earlier today you replied in your typical snide fashion - which has given
me a good understanding of your limited communication range.

Thanks for pushing my button again, Lameboy!

So, you going to continue to say I've not made my position clear, you
going to continue to act childishly in responses?

Guess it's your button now.

 

[kurttrail]

It may not make sense to you, but as you say below, I should be
entitled to my opinion.

LOL! Who said you aren't entitled to believe any nonsense you want to
believe.

Since I have to comply with so many vendors
license restrictions, and so many clients rely on us to properly
license their environments, I'm not about to risk some "person's"
interpretation that may or may not stand up in court.

Do you just provide your customer with MS's interpretation, or do you
present them both sides of the argument so they can make their own
informed opinion? Something tells me that you just read them the MS
riot act verbatim, like it was written in stone.

It's not and
has never been a money issue,

Not for you! Your customer's money!

it's an issue of being able to be taken
to court and not having the money that MS does or the Anti-Piracy
groups have. Legal is one thing, being taken to court by a opponent
with deeper pockets is another. It's not like the ACLU is going to
defend me if MS comes after me.

LOL! What is MS gonna go after you for? Please explain!

Ah, but you see, it appears you are talking about Politics/Religion
and not Licensing. In licensing, if a vendor with DEEP POCKETS says
you have to comply with X and you're doing Y and refuse to do X, and
they vendor takes you to court, it costs you money to PROVE you're
right. In the case of large vendors like MS, there is nothing
compelling anyone to use their product, it's a CHOICE. Sure, you
don't have to play by their rules, you don't have to listen to them
and you can do what ever you want - until a action is brought against
you.

You are holding your customers to rules neither you or them agreed to.
Neither the SBL or the EULA says anything about that changing a
motherboard invalidates an OEM license. What MS says on its SB website,
is definitely not binding on any End User, by any stretch of the
imagination. It is not a legally valid addendum to either the SBL or
the EULA, and it, in fact, directly contradicts what a computer is
according to the SBL.

I don't know how much you pay for your attorney, but our has
never been cheap, in fact they charge more per hour that I charge for
most of the guys. In many cases, just having to prove you are
properly licensed can eat up more hours (and hours are free) than the
cost of having purchased the necessary licenses to start with.

That is your problem. Not an End User's. Especially private
non-commercial individual who use the software in the PRIVACY of their
own home!

Now, I don't follow the "Guru" or others. I read the EULA (on many MS
products), determined that I didn't have a clear definition of select
terms, and spent several days with a regional MS representative in
order to understand their licensing structure in addition to the
documents surrounding it. I have also read definitions on various
terms and conditions as listed on their site, not just the Systems
Builder Site.

And when the terms of the actual agreement contradict what the MS rep or
MS web site says, you always favor MS's extra-EULA explanation over what
is actually written in the license.

You are blatantly anti-consumer, and pro-Corporation.

I fully agree, but a discussion that entails foul language, maligning
of names, and trolling, is far from a discussion. Heck, even if I say
something nice about Kurts posting he gets bent out of shape and has
to resort to childish insults or trolling.

LOL! Buttons!

I also fully agree that individuals should discuss this and other
issues, but I don't consider it inappropriate or unjustified to
license MS product as MS intends them to be licensed, even if there
is no legal precedent to show that their license agreements or
additional clarifications are binding.

You just accept it all on faith.

As I said before, just the
cost associated with one action of being taken to court or audited
can cost more than having purchasing the proper licenses as MS
"intends" you do purchase.

Private non-commercial individuals don't get audited as MS doesn't have
that right to invade the privacy of one's home.

If this issue was just concerning my home systems, not business
system, I would side with Kurt, but he's missing that there is more
to consider than just his side.

I could care less about businesses. My concern is that of my fellow
human beings in the privacy of their own home, and have som sycophantic
MicroLovers telling them, in effect, that MS's word is the law, and that
MS is the master of what they can and cannot do with their computer.

I'm fully willing to let Kurt be the
test case, he seems like he could do a good job at it.

So am I! I even announced to MS that I actually move OEM software to
another computer back in 2001, that's how willing I am to be a test
case. It ain't my fault that MS has chosen not to exercise its due
diligence when it come to the bogus usage term on private non-commercial
individuals.

Their silence on the matter speaks volumes. By not exercising due
diligence when it comes to my open flaunting of their Bogus
unsubstantiated rules, they have tacitly agreed to my interpretation of
them.

I am not
willing to let my mother or clients or my business be the test case.

Nope, you'd rather have your mom buy more copies than she needs over
rules that MS has no way to find out about!

Thanks for the feedback.

You're Welcome!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

Do you just provide your customer with MS's interpretation, or do you
present them both sides of the argument so they can make their own
informed opinion? Something tells me that you just read them the MS
riot act verbatim, like it was written in stone.

Before a purchase I set down with the client and go over a solution, to
make sure there is complete understanding of the solution. Then, if no
changes are necessary, I present them with the licensing needed according
to either the MS rep or the CDW/Insight/etc... rep's list/costs. I have
never told a client that they could do what every they wanted with the MS
products and to nor worry because it's not been tested in court yet, I
have never told a client that some guy on Usenet says we don't have to
listen to MS concerning licenses. I've also never told them to ignore the
licensing information provide by Adobe, MacroMedia, Oracle, PeopleSoft, or
any other vendors license information.

As a matter of fact, where the is any question in how many/what type of
licenses are needed I always get a quote from the vendor or a vendors
agent. My opinion on licenses doesn't matter, it never did. I only present
the information that I can find to be valid from the vendor or the vendors
agents.

I suppose next time we do a state contract you would want me to tell them
that as long as we purchase 1 CAL for SQL server that we can enable 4
processor support and use it as the backend for the web server apps?

 

[Lou]

It may not make sense to you, but as you say below, I should be entitled
to my opinion. Since I have to comply with so many vendors license
restrictions, and so many clients rely on us to properly license their
environments, I'm not about to risk some "person's" interpretation that
may or may not stand up in court. It's not and has never been a money
issue, it's an issue of being able to be taken to court and not having the
money that MS does or the Anti-Piracy groups have. Legal is one thing,
being taken to court by a opponent with deeper pockets is another. It's
not like the ACLU is going to defend me if MS comes after me.

If by "person's" you mean Kurttrail, I agree. If by "person's" you
mean MS, then we have a classic case of a Guru.

Ah, but you see, it appears you are talking about Politics/Religion and
not Licensing. In licensing, if a vendor with DEEP POCKETS says you have
to comply with X and you're doing Y and refuse to do X, and they vendor
takes you to court, it costs you money to PROVE you're right. In the case
of large vendors like MS, there is nothing compelling anyone to use their
product, it's a CHOICE. Sure, you don't have to play by their rules, you
don't have to listen to them and you can do what ever you want - until a
action is brought against you. I don't know how much you pay for your
attorney, but our has never been cheap, in fact they charge more per hour
that I charge for most of the guys. In many cases, just having to prove
you are properly licensed can eat up more hours (and hours are free) than
the cost of having purchased the necessary licenses to start with.

Now, I don't follow the "Guru" or others. I read the EULA (on many MS
products), determined that I didn't have a clear definition of select
terms, and spent several days with a regional MS representative in order
to understand their licensing structure in addition to the documents
surrounding it. I have also read definitions on various terms and
conditions as listed on their site, not just the Systems Builder Site.

There are many Gurus in business environments. In this case the Guru
is MS and you do follow. It appears you follow through fear of being
hurt or hurting others in the future. This is a classic tactic used
in business as well as politics and religion. I cannot believe you
are so naive to think MS has not nor will not use scare tactics to
achieve their business goals.

I fully agree, but a discussion that entails foul language, maligning of
names, and trolling, is far from a discussion. Heck, even if I say
something nice about Kurts posting he gets bent out of shape and has to
resort to childish insults or trolling.

I also fully agree that individuals should discuss this and other issues,
but I don't consider it inappropriate or unjustified to license MS product
as MS intends them to be licensed, even if there is no legal precedent to
show that their license agreements or additional clarifications are
binding. As I said before, just the cost associated with one action of
being taken to court or audited can cost more than having purchasing the
proper licenses as MS "intends" you do purchase.

If this issue was just concerning my home systems, not business system, I
would side with Kurt, but he's missing that there is more to consider than
just his side. I'm fully willing to let Kurt be the test case, he seems
like he could do a good job at it. I am not willing to let my mother or
clients or my business be the test case.

Siding with Kurt is easy if one is concerned only with their private
systems. It is more difficult when others are involved.

I cannot criticize your actions as I cannot know what I would do if I
were in your shoes. But I fail to see how you can deny that MS makes
and changes the rules as it sees fit to maximize their profits at the
expense of others. Without testing their decisions in court, but
simply by using its immense resources they have and will continue to
coerce businesses and individuals by using potential future harm
tactics. A common practice used by Gurus of all walks of life.

Thanks for the feedback.

You are welcome

 

[kurttrail]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:03:07 -0800, kurttrail wrote:

Lamethos.

There goes your button again - can't keep a proper conversation
going to you resort back to your childish manners. I can't really
believe you're more than a kid in high-school, you certainly fall
back to their typical trolling manners.

In other words, Lamethos has no "rational explanation as to why [he]
unrealistically believe that some agreement exists between the End
User and MS that justifies MS's password-protected,
registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA 'New Rules,'"

I think I've clearly explained my position a great many times.

No. You have not given one rational explanation why and End User should
follow extra-SBL/EULA "New Rules." You explained why you follow them as
a business man, for fear of Big Brother suing you, but you have yet
explained why a person using OEM XP should follow your advice to believe
that MS's password-protected, registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA 'New
Rules' in the privacy of their own home.

I've
also explained my position on why I will continue to license products
according to the licensing information available to anyone, not
limiting myself to the EULA.

No, it's not available to anyone unwilling to register for access to the
SB web site. As a somewhat intelligent human being, I don't go around
registering on web sites when I have no compelling reason to access
them.

I will not test the validity MS claims
or licenses as it costs more to be part of the test than the licenses.

But you have taken a side, and if it is ever tested in a court of law,
you may be financially responsible for the your admittingly selling more
licenses than necessary, if MS loses. And if tested, MS stands a very
good chance of losing, since what it says on its web site is a direct
contradiction to what is actually written in the SBL concerning what
makes up a computer.

Nope, I pointed out how you can't discuss anything with out a
childish or snide part in your reply.

Your argument is about style to avoid substance.

Even when I complemented you on
not doing it earlier today you replied in your typical snide fashion
- which has given me a good understanding of your limited
communication range.

Buttons, dude! ;-)

So, you going to continue to say I've not made my position clear, you
going to continue to act childishly in responses?

Again you explained you fear that motivates you personally as a
businessman, you have yet to give one compelling reason why any
individual should accept MS's extra-EULA terms, written for System
Builders not End Users, as the Gospel According to Sir Billy Gates of
Redmond.

Guess it's your button now.

Dude, I have no button. I just have you as a pratical demonstration of
how irrational MicroSycophants have to be in order to believe as they
do.

Thanks again for playing my game!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

Right back at you big boy.

How? Are you actually trying to convince the group how foolish and
fearful you really are?

Why do you even bother? I'm sure anyone with a rational thought in
their heads are already convinced! ;-)

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

Oh, heck, come on, if your not one of Kurt's disciples it was dang
funny.

Yes, it was funny, except it exposed more about Linda, than it did about
me.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

I'm not one of Kurt's disciples. Agreeing with someone and being their
disciple are two different things. Yaknow, like your favorite web
site and the EULA.

LOL! No I doubt he understands that his favorite website and the EULA
are too separate and distinct things!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

Oh, come on, there are times when I can't tell the two of you apart,
except your not foul and angry most of the time and he is.

When am I angry? You should actually see how hard I'm really laughing
as I read your posts and reply to them!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

Piss off, you little freak.
LOL!

You started throwing "ad hominem" around
the day you read it on your word-of-the-day calendar, and it's the
most polysyllabic word in your stunted little vocabulary. Go hump
Kurt's leg.

Um, no thanks. I think it was you that was looking for that kind of
attention!

I think I'm done with all you half-wits.

That only leaves you with your own kind, no-wits!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

OK, that's the second time that people have wondered about why I was
laughing out-loud today. Thanks I needed that one too.

Yeah, because you aren't man enough to stand up for yourself. You
probably are hiding behind your mommies dress right now.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

I cannot criticize your actions as I cannot know what I would do if I
were in your shoes. But I fail to see how you can deny that MS makes
and changes the rules as it sees fit to maximize their profits at the
expense of others. Without testing their decisions in court, but
simply by using its immense resources they have and will continue to
coerce businesses and individuals by using potential future harm
tactics. A common practice used by Gurus of all walks of life.

If you really what to know why I make the decisions on licensing that I
do, find someone in charge at a company that's been through a licensing
audit. The company I use to work for, before starting my own, was audited
about a year before I joined - they were fined more than $350K for the
unlicensed installs, and that was a reduced fine. As it turns out, those
types of things have been tested in court, while the home users have not
been to my knowledge.

I done installations in 6 companies that were audited BEFORE we were
involved with them and I've seen the cost of fighting it, seen the lost
production time, seen the cost in people being fired for the infractions.

It's not a fear of MS, heck, would I be posting that I'm a partner and ISV
while using a Linux box to do it if I were afraid of MS? Actually, I'm
just practical about it. It's kind of like Insurance companies methods -
sometimes it's cheaper to pay then to fight. Sometimes you don't want to
be a test case as you can't afford to win, so it's better to comply and
not lose.

With what I've seen happen to businesses I'm not willing to take the
chance with personal either - sure, I don't really expect MS to ever go
after an individual as it would be very bad PR, but if they ever do I
won't want to be a target as their test case.

As an example, I just installed Server 2003 Std and Exchange 2003 Std on a
old 2GB RAM, Dual P3/1ghz system to act as a small email server. I bought
the 2003 licenses and the Exchange 2003 licenses even though I already
have paid for licenses in-house on another server. If I were to follow
Kurts path since I have already purchased both products I could install
them on my server for personal use and there would be no harm/no foul. I'm
not about to risk it.

 

[Leythos]

Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:03:07 -0800, kurttrail wrote:

Lamethos.

There goes your button again - can't keep a proper conversation
going to you resort back to your childish manners. I can't really
believe you're more than a kid in high-school, you certainly fall
back to their typical trolling manners.

In other words, Lamethos has no "rational explanation as to why [he]
unrealistically believe that some agreement exists between the End
User and MS that justifies MS's password-protected,
registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA 'New Rules,'"

I think I've clearly explained my position a great many times.

No. You have not given one rational explanation

Sorry, but rational to one person does not mean rational to another. My
ideals are my own, they don't have to be considered rational to anyone by
people I respect.

[snip]

No, it's not available to anyone unwilling to register for access to the
SB web site. As a somewhat intelligent human being, I don't go around
registering on web sites when I have no compelling reason to access
them.

And the EULA is not available to anyone unwilling to read it if you want
to take that path, you don't have any point here.

But you have taken a side, and if it is ever tested in a court of law,
you may be financially responsible for the your admittingly selling more
licenses than necessary, if MS loses. And if tested, MS stands a very
good chance of losing, since what it says on its web site is a direct
contradiction to what is actually written in the SBL concerning what
makes up a computer.

I don't stand any chance of loss, as it's clearly explained by the Vendor
that provides the licensing - I don't approve or disapprove it.

Your argument is about style to avoid substance.

No, I don't call your rudeness style, I call it what it is - a complete
lack of maturity that I would only expect from kids or the mental. You
don't have to act that way at all, and it does not help your position.

Buttons, dude! ;-)

I agree, and I've been pushing yours all day today.

Again you explained you fear that motivates you personally as a
businessman, you have yet to give one compelling reason why any
individual should accept MS's extra-EULA terms, written for System
Builders not End Users, as the Gospel According to Sir Billy Gates of
Redmond.

As I explained to the other poster, which you seem to have parroted, I
have seen valid reasons to follow MS licensing information and not just an
interpretation by some Usenet poster. How many audits have you been
through, how many CIO's do you know that have been through and audit? Fear
would be something that may or may not be justified, actual fines paid are
not a fear thing, they are reality and if you understand the licensing
it's not a fear, it's just business.

Dude, I have no button. I just have you as a pratical demonstration of
how irrational MicroSycophants have to be in order to believe as they
do.

Thanks again for playing my game!

Your welcome, it's been more fun today than yesterday, and your buttons
have been pushed.

 

[kurttrail]

Before a purchase I set down with the client and go over a solution,
to make sure there is complete understanding of the solution. Then,
if no changes are necessary, I present them with the licensing needed
according to either the MS rep or the CDW/Insight/etc... rep's
list/costs. I have never told a client that they could do what every
they wanted with the MS products and to nor worry because it's not
been tested in court yet, I have never told a client that some guy on
Usenet says we don't have to listen to MS concerning licenses. I've
also never told them to ignore the licensing information provide by
Adobe, MacroMedia, Oracle, PeopleSoft, or any other vendors license
information.

And you never told them that what they are agreeing to may be changed
according to what Microsoft might dream up any time in the future and
write on a registration-require web site, I would suspect.

So much for full-disclosure!

As a matter of fact, where the is any question in how many/what type
of licenses are needed I always get a quote from the vendor or a
vendors agent. My opinion on licenses doesn't matter, it never did. I
only present the information that I can find to be valid from the
vendor or the vendors agents.

That's right your opinion doesn't matter, you just do what you are told,
like the mindless MicroSycophant that you are.

I suppose next time we do a state contract you would want me to tell
them that as long as we purchase 1 CAL for SQL server that we can
enable 4 processor support and use it as the backend for the web
server apps?

If that is what the EULA says, and not some registration-required web
site. See you don't understand me at all. I fully agree that the EULA
is a perfectly valid commercial use contract. Now extra-SBL/EULA
interpretations that hidden away behind registrations and passwords are
NOT part of any valid agreement. Especially when it directly conflicts
with what is written in the original agreement.

SBL: "A "fully assembled computer system" means a computer system
consisting of at least a central
processing unit, a motherboard, a hard drive, a power supply, and a
case.

The motherboard is only one of five parts of a computer, and MS has no
right or basis in reality to redefine a computer as just the
motherboard, outside of what is written in the SBL on its
registration-required, password-protected web site for
Microsoft-certified System Builders, and MS should not have any
expectation that ANY End User of OEM software is bound by this
bait-n-switch redefinition.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"