T
Tom
Leythos said:
Are people agreeing to the website to get their product to function, or the
EULA in the software?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Are people agreeing to the website to get their product to function, or the
EULA in the software?
M
Michael Stevens
In
Tom,
Those blinders are on so tight I am surprised you can see at all.
How you perceive the relevance of the information is not important, it is
the information from all sources that you should consider and use to your
advantage. If I know that if I show up at the airport with my prized family
heirloom pocketknife in my pocket, check my bags and proceed to the X-Ray
and metal detector with the pocketknife in my pocket it will be confiscated
if I want to clear security, I would have put it in my checked baggage, left
it at home or made other arrangements. Personally, I feel like I should be
allowed to bring it on the plane, I am not a terrorist, I paid for my right
to board the plane and in my opinion with my pocketknife in my pocket. Plus
I heard a friend of a friend was allowed to carry their pocketknife through
security so it must be ok. Should I chance it?
To be overly simplistic, if you feel like you are in compliance, don't say
what hardware you upgraded, just say you upgraded your hardware. That is
what knowing ALL the information allows you to decide.
8~^)
OEM clarification.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
Tom said:Except that information isn't binding, since you reference a website
that interprets hardware to EULA, as what was the topic of
discussion. Not in EULA, not a good source of reliable/valid/binding
info otherwise.
Tom,
Those blinders are on so tight I am surprised you can see at all.
How you perceive the relevance of the information is not important, it is
the information from all sources that you should consider and use to your
advantage. If I know that if I show up at the airport with my prized family
heirloom pocketknife in my pocket, check my bags and proceed to the X-Ray
and metal detector with the pocketknife in my pocket it will be confiscated
if I want to clear security, I would have put it in my checked baggage, left
it at home or made other arrangements. Personally, I feel like I should be
allowed to bring it on the plane, I am not a terrorist, I paid for my right
to board the plane and in my opinion with my pocketknife in my pocket. Plus
I heard a friend of a friend was allowed to carry their pocketknife through
security so it must be ok. Should I chance it?
To be overly simplistic, if you feel like you are in compliance, don't say
what hardware you upgraded, just say you upgraded your hardware. That is
what knowing ALL the information allows you to decide.
8~^)
OEM clarification.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
A
Alias
Tom said:Are people agreeing to the website to get their product to function, or
the EULA in the software?
Notice that back pedaling Leythos won't quote the URL because it doesn't
apply to an End User.
Alias
L
Leythos
Notice that back pedaling Leythos won't quote the URL because it doesn't
apply to an End User.
No Alias, I "didn't" quote the site by providing the URL because I've been
there several times, even posted the information about it, and you've said
you won't read it since it means you have to register to see it. As it's
fairly obvious to anyone that really cares or doesn't have some anti-ms
agenda I don't see the need to go back to the site, search through the
various links/pages and then paste another link you won't read. I didn't
bookmark the site, I didn't really think it was that important since
anyone that cares can find it too.
M
Michael Stevens
In
The one thing you seem to be ignoring is MS seems to be granting activations
on swapped Motherboards as long as it is only install once. I haven't seen
anyone post that they werer denied activation.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
Leythos said:No Alias, I "didn't" quote the site by providing the URL because I've
been there several times, even posted the information about it, and
you've said you won't read it since it means you have to register to
see it. As it's fairly obvious to anyone that really cares or doesn't
have some anti-ms agenda I don't see the need to go back to the site,
search through the various links/pages and then paste another link
you won't read. I didn't bookmark the site, I didn't really think it
was that important since anyone that cares can find it too.
The one thing you seem to be ignoring is MS seems to be granting activations
on swapped Motherboards as long as it is only install once. I haven't seen
anyone post that they werer denied activation.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
L
Leythos
In
The one thing you seem to be ignoring is MS seems to be granting activations
on swapped Motherboards as long as it is only install once. I haven't seen
anyone post that they werer denied activation.
Actually, if that was directed at me, I've even posted that I've had them
activate MS Office 2003 after I used the wrong key (from the action pack).
I've also posted that the call center has activated many OEM XP installs
after changing parts/motherboards. What I have clearly said is that the
OEM site states that the computer is the motherboard and that replacement
of the motherboard, except for repair, invalidates the license according
to the OEM information provided on the MS Systems Builders site. What the
people in the call centers do is really up to them as they are human, but
helpful, they could just activate without any question as part of their
normal policy or as a generic thing that they decided to do on their own.
Read the Systems Builder site to get the "Official" position, since only
the statements they provide make any real difference.
A
Alias
Leythos said:No Alias, I "didn't" quote the site by providing the URL because I've been
there several times, even posted the information about it, and you've said
you won't read it since it means you have to register to see it. As it's
fairly obvious to anyone that really cares or doesn't have some anti-ms
agenda I don't see the need to go back to the site, search through the
various links/pages and then paste another link you won't read. I didn't
bookmark the site, I didn't really think it was that important since
anyone that cares can find it too.
You haven't posted an URL regarding OEM rules for *End Users* that
upgrade/replace motherboards; you have only posted an url for MS Systems
Builders. Post one for the End Users and you have a point. If you can't --
and you can't because it doesn't exist -- you need to eat your words. MY
EULA doesn't say ANYTHING about a motherboard OR to check the MS Systems
Builders site to see if anything has changed.
Alias
J
Jim Byrd
Here's the explicit wording from:
https://oem.microsoft.com/script/ContentPage.aspx?pageid=552862
"Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on
your customer's computer and the end user may maintain the license for the
original Microsoft® OEM operating system software, with the exception of an
upgrade or replacement of the motherboard.
An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a "new personal
computer" to which Microsoft® OEM operating system software cannot be
transferred from another computer. If the motherboard is upgraded or
replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer has been
created and the license of new operating system software is required.
If the motherboard is replaced because it is defective, you do NOT need to
acquire a new operating system license for the PC.
The reason for this licensing rule primarily relates to the end-user license
agreement (EULA) and the support of the software covered by that EULA. The
EULA is a set of usage rights granted to the end-user by the PC manufacturer
and relates only to rights for that software as installed on that particular
PC. The System Builder is required to support the software on that
individual PC. Understanding that end users, over time, upgrade their PC
with different components, Microsoft needed to have one base component "left
standing" that would still define that original PC. Since the motherboard
contains the CPU and is the "heart and soul" of the PC, when the motherboard
is replaced (for reasons other than defect) a new PC is essentially created.
The original System Builder, therefore, can not be expected to support this
new PC that they in effect, did not manufacture."
--
Please respond in the same thread.
Regards, Jim Byrd, MS-MVP
In
https://oem.microsoft.com/script/ContentPage.aspx?pageid=552862
"Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on
your customer's computer and the end user may maintain the license for the
original Microsoft® OEM operating system software, with the exception of an
upgrade or replacement of the motherboard.
An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a "new personal
computer" to which Microsoft® OEM operating system software cannot be
transferred from another computer. If the motherboard is upgraded or
replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer has been
created and the license of new operating system software is required.
If the motherboard is replaced because it is defective, you do NOT need to
acquire a new operating system license for the PC.
The reason for this licensing rule primarily relates to the end-user license
agreement (EULA) and the support of the software covered by that EULA. The
EULA is a set of usage rights granted to the end-user by the PC manufacturer
and relates only to rights for that software as installed on that particular
PC. The System Builder is required to support the software on that
individual PC. Understanding that end users, over time, upgrade their PC
with different components, Microsoft needed to have one base component "left
standing" that would still define that original PC. Since the motherboard
contains the CPU and is the "heart and soul" of the PC, when the motherboard
is replaced (for reasons other than defect) a new PC is essentially created.
The original System Builder, therefore, can not be expected to support this
new PC that they in effect, did not manufacture."
--
Please respond in the same thread.
Regards, Jim Byrd, MS-MVP
In
L
Leythos
You haven't posted an URL regarding OEM rules for *End Users* that
upgrade/replace motherboards; you have only posted an url for MS Systems
Builders. Post one for the End Users and you have a point. If you can't --
and you can't because it doesn't exist -- you need to eat your words. MY
EULA doesn't say ANYTHING about a motherboard OR to check the MS Systems
Builders site to see if anything has changed.
If you had read the site I provided for you, it would clearly cover what
you are asking - ANY OEM, not just Systems Builders. Unless your countries
laws specifically modify the agreement, the one that MS provides stands.
You can eat your own words - if you are to lame to understand that's your
problem, not mine.
L
Leythos
Here's the explicit wording from:
https://oem.microsoft.com/script/ContentPage.aspx?pageid=552862
"Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on
your customer's computer and the end user may maintain the license for the
original Microsoft® OEM operating system software, with the exception of an
upgrade or replacement of the motherboard.
An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a "new personal
computer" to which Microsoft® OEM operating system software cannot be
transferred from another computer. If the motherboard is upgraded or
replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer has been
created and the license of new operating system software is required.
If the motherboard is replaced because it is defective, you do NOT need to
acquire a new operating system license for the PC.
The reason for this licensing rule primarily relates to the end-user license
agreement (EULA) and the support of the software covered by that EULA. The
EULA is a set of usage rights granted to the end-user by the PC manufacturer
and relates only to rights for that software as installed on that particular
PC. The System Builder is required to support the software on that
individual PC. Understanding that end users, over time, upgrade their PC
with different components, Microsoft needed to have one base component "left
standing" that would still define that original PC. Since the motherboard
contains the CPU and is the "heart and soul" of the PC, when the motherboard
is replaced (for reasons other than defect) a new PC is essentially created.
The original System Builder, therefore, can not be expected to support this
new PC that they in effect, did not manufacture."
Thanks Jim, problem is that the Anti-MS people in this forum will claim it
doesn't apply to them. Alias will fail to understand any part of the above.
A
Alias
Leythos said:If you had read the site I provided for you, it would clearly cover what
you are asking - ANY OEM, not just Systems Builders. Unless your countries
laws specifically modify the agreement, the one that MS provides stands.
You can eat your own words - if you are to lame to understand that's your
problem, not mine.
All three of my EULAs say NOTHING about a motherboard. Ergo, I can change it
at will because that is the ONLY agreement I agreed to, your lame back
pedaling notwithstanding.
In fact, I have done exactly that and had no problems activating. Proof in
the pudding and all that jazz.
Alias
T
Tom
Michael Stevens said:In
Tom,
Those blinders are on so tight I am surprised you can see at all.
How you perceive the relevance of the information is not important, it is
the information from all sources that you should consider and use to your
advantage. If I know that if I show up at the airport with my prized
family heirloom pocketknife in my pocket, check my bags and proceed to the
X-Ray and metal detector with the pocketknife in my pocket it will be
confiscated if I want to clear security, I would have put it in my checked
baggage, left it at home or made other arrangements. Personally, I feel
like I should be allowed to bring it on the plane, I am not a terrorist, I
paid for my right to board the plane and in my opinion with my pocketknife
in my pocket. Plus I heard a friend of a friend was allowed to carry
their pocketknife through security so it must be ok. Should I chance it?
To be overly simplistic, if you feel like you are in compliance, don't say
what hardware you upgraded, just say you upgraded your hardware. That is
what knowing ALL the information allows you to decide.
8~^)
But that isn't what the discussion entailed, so you need to stop using the
"blinders" theme. Leythos SPECIFICALLY stated that the motherboard is part
of the agreement I click on in the EULA (this is what I initially contended
Mike, or are you failing to still see that, blinders?), which it isn't even
mentioned. He then refers others to a site that states that this is what the
EULA entails (though it mentions nothing of the sort in the EULA, again what
is at contention!). As I will tell you one last time, I agreed to the EULA,
not to a website, whether the info is to my advantage is irrelevant to the
fact that the EULA mentions nothing about a MOBO, which is at contention
here, not my ability to use rights for whatever reasons.
So, the airport thingie has nothing to do with this as an analogy. Again, if
I agree to something by clicking on it (e.g. XP OS software install and
use), it is that agreement I am bound to, not how it then restates itself on
a website. Using your airport logic doesn't fit, because it is clearly
stated at the airport, and on all post 9/11 ticket information as to what
can or cannot be brought aboard airliners. The EULA does not state MOBO, but
another site does pertaining to OEM agreements, to which Leythos states
makes the MOBO the part that is bound to an OEM install disk. He is wrong,
and you need to follow what I am following.
T
Tom
Thanks Jim, problem is that the Anti-MS people in this forum will claim it
doesn't apply to them. Alias will fail to understand any part of the
above.
Its nothing to do with being anti-MS, or I wouldn't use their operating
systems, and software applications It has to do with wording here, you
confuse the two in your unreal world.
But if you read the last line from Jim's post:
"Understanding that end users, over time, upgrade their PC
with different components, Microsoft needed to have one base component "left
standing" that would still define that original PC. Since the motherboard
contains the CPU and is the "heart and soul" of the PC, when the motherboard
is replaced (for reasons other than defect) a new PC is essentially created.
The original System Builder, therefore, can not be expected to support this
new PC that they in effect, did not manufacture."
No-one is contending what the OEM has to support in such a change, but show
me where it states that the OS is dead with the original MOBO when it is
changed! The wording needs to be said as such in the EULA itslef, and that
the OS is tied to the MOBO in the EULA, not from another source that I
didn't, or was required to agree to. Stop making spins on what you think, or
are you just against those who disagree with MS's licensing policies?
K
Ken Blake
In
Well, that makes it clear how Microsoft would like to interpret
the EULA. However, it's not the EULA itself, and therefore isn't
binding on the customer. If it ever came to a court of law, the
court's interpretation would prevail, and that's not necessarily
the same as Microsoft's, nor the same as the customer's.
If that's what Microsoft wants the EULA to mean, then it should
change the EULA to use those words.
Jim Byrd said:Here's the explicit wording from:
https://oem.microsoft.com/script/ContentPage.aspx?pageid=552862
"Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware
components
on your customer's computer and the end user may maintain the
license
for the original Microsoft® OEM operating system software, with
the
exception of an upgrade or replacement of the motherboard.
An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a "new
personal computer" to which Microsoft® OEM operating system
software
cannot be transferred from another computer. If the motherboard
is
upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a
new
computer has been created and the license of new operating
system
software is required.
Well, that makes it clear how Microsoft would like to interpret
the EULA. However, it's not the EULA itself, and therefore isn't
binding on the customer. If it ever came to a court of law, the
court's interpretation would prevail, and that's not necessarily
the same as Microsoft's, nor the same as the customer's.
If that's what Microsoft wants the EULA to mean, then it should
change the EULA to use those words.
L
Leythos
All three of my EULAs say NOTHING about a motherboard. Ergo, I can change it
at will because that is the ONLY agreement I agreed to, your lame back
pedaling notwithstanding.
In fact, I have done exactly that and had no problems activating. Proof in
the pudding and all that jazz.
That's not proof, that's just the way it worked for you.
L
Leythos
Its nothing to do with being anti-MS, or I wouldn't use their operating
systems, and software applications It has to do with wording here, you
confuse the two in your unreal world.
But if you read the last line from Jim's post:
"Understanding that end users, over time, upgrade their PC
with different components, Microsoft needed to have one base component "left
standing" that would still define that original PC. Since the motherboard
contains the CPU and is the "heart and soul" of the PC, when the motherboard
is replaced (for reasons other than defect) a new PC is essentially created.
The original System Builder, therefore, can not be expected to support this
new PC that they in effect, did not manufacture."
No-one is contending what the OEM has to support in such a change, but show
me where it states that the OS is dead with the original MOBO when it is
changed! The wording needs to be said as such in the EULA itslef, and that
the OS is tied to the MOBO in the EULA, not from another source that I
didn't, or was required to agree to. Stop making spins on what you think, or
are you just against those who disagree with MS's licensing policies?
To disagree is one thing, to actively tell people to subvert or to
actively go against the agreement is another thing entirely.
This quote from the site (listed above) clearly states that changing the
motherboard invalidates the license (except for a repair):
You can't disagree with what they say or how it applies to the OEM
products, you can disagree with following it, but the simple fact is that
it's quite clear - this is the only position I have on this subject. I've
not said I approve or disapprove with their rule/license, only that it's
quite clear on the licensing part for OEM installations.
L
Leythos
But that isn't what the discussion entailed, so you need to stop using the
"blinders" theme. Leythos SPECIFICALLY stated that the motherboard is part
of the agreement I click on in the EULA (this is what I initially contended
Mike, or are you failing to still see that, blinders?), which it isn't even
mentioned. He then refers others to a site that states that this is what the
EULA entails (though it mentions nothing of the sort in the EULA, again what
is at contention!). As I will tell you one last time, I agreed to the EULA,
not to a website, whether the info is to my advantage is irrelevant to the
fact that the EULA mentions nothing about a MOBO, which is at contention
here, not my ability to use rights for whatever reasons.
No, you agreed to the EULA and any changes they may make - see the site
for the changes. As for OEM, if your VAR didn't tell you that's not an
excuse. It's clearly on the MS site concerning OEM installs - Heck, you
can't even claim ignorance since you've already been told about it, you
can only claim stupidity or greed.
A
Alias
Ken Blake said:In
Well, that makes it clear how Microsoft would like to interpret the EULA.
However, it's not the EULA itself, and therefore isn't binding on the
customer. If it ever came to a court of law, the court's interpretation
would prevail, and that's not necessarily the same as Microsoft's, nor the
same as the customer's.
If that's what Microsoft wants the EULA to mean, then it should change the
EULA to use those words.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Amen.
Alias
A
Alias
Leythos said:That's not proof, that's just the way it worked for you.
The only thing I agreed to was the EULA when I installed the licence.
Period. What is it about that that you can't understand? It's the only thing
that could possibly be called a "contract". Going too fast for you? Once you
get this part, let me know.
Alias
M
Michael Stevens
In
LOL, I never replied to Leythos, and you are not wearing blinders, you are
just blind. LOL.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
Tom said:But that isn't what the discussion entailed, so you need to stop
using the "blinders" theme. Leythos SPECIFICALLY stated that the
motherboard is part of the agreement I click on in the EULA (this is
what I initially contended Mike, or are you failing to still see
that, blinders?), which it isn't even mentioned. He then refers
others to a site that states that this is what the EULA entails
(though it mentions nothing of the sort in the EULA, again what is at
contention!). As I will tell you one last time, I agreed to the EULA,
not to a website, whether the info is to my advantage is irrelevant
to the fact that the EULA mentions nothing about a MOBO, which is at
contention here, not my ability to use rights for whatever reasons.
So, the airport thingie has nothing to do with this as an analogy.
Again, if I agree to something by clicking on it (e.g. XP OS software
install and use), it is that agreement I am bound to, not how it then
restates itself on a website. Using your airport logic doesn't fit,
because it is clearly stated at the airport, and on all post 9/11
ticket information as to what can or cannot be brought aboard
airliners. The EULA does not state MOBO, but another site does
pertaining to OEM agreements, to which Leythos states makes the MOBO
the part that is bound to an OEM install disk. He is wrong, and you
need to follow what I am following.
LOL, I never replied to Leythos, and you are not wearing blinders, you are
just blind. LOL.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm