Nepatsfan said:OK, fine. Isn't there a notice on the retail packaging that
installing the software means you agree to the license?
I also
seem to recall seeing literature included with new computers
that stated essentially the same thing?
responsibility of the end user to read this stuff?
If you're referring to someone who purchased an OEM version
from a retailer wouldn't there argument be with the person who
sold them the software?
Nepatsfan
In said:No, no EULA either.
I build my own computers.
Isn't it the
Not if they have to open it, start to install it and *then*
be given the option to agree or disagree to the EULA when it
is too late to get your money back.
No, the retailer can't get his money back from MS either.
Alias
Nepatsfan said:After Christmas, I'll make it a point of checking out a retail
package to see whether there's a notice on the bottom of the
box. When I built my system I purchased a retail version of XP.
Unfortunately, I didn't hang on to the box.
As for the OEM version, here's a well known retailer who
provides plenty of information regarding the software it sells.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16837102062
It even looks like they slap the EULA on their packaging.
http://tinyurl.com/93e3w
Since Newegg passes along this information, why shouldn't other
retailers do the same.
Nepatsfan
Alias said:All the above said, whether it is on the outside of the box or not, if I
breach the EULA agreement, I am not breaking the law until a court rules
that I do and copyright breach is not a criminal case.
Nepatsfan said:I didn't say it couldn't be done. I said "You aren't allowed". The
original question asked "Is it legal ...". I interpreted that to mean the
OP wanted to follow the conditions set forth in the EULA.
In the EULA for an XP upgrade you'll find this section:
"2. UPGRADES. To use a Product identified as an upgrade, you must
first be licensed for the product identified by Microsoft
as eligible for the upgrade. After upgrading, you may no
longer use the product that formed the basis for your
upgrade eligibility."
According to a number of knowledgeable sources on these newsgroups, that
clause means that the license for Win 98 is combined with the XP upgrade
license to form the final license. Once you use the Win 98 license to
qualify for the upgrade, you're not allowed to use that license to create
a separate installation of Windows 98, not even on the same computer.
Bruce said:What kind of absurd reasoning is that? Are you saying that no crime
has been committed if the perpetrator goes undetected, uncaught or
unpunished? No one could possibly be that stupid.
Alias said:It hasn't been established that breaching the EULA is against the law.
Get it now?
Bruce said:Yes, it has. It was determined in 1996 that EULAs are legally
enforceable contracts, under the Uniform Commercial Code.
Alias said:Bruce Chambers wrote:
And how many end users has MS taken to court? None?
Alias
Bruce said:You're arguing in circles, again .... Back to the "If no catches
me, I haven't done anything wrong" rationalization.
You know, most
people outgrow that whilst still in grade school.
upgrade CD and the CD assisted me in installing WinXP onto HD1 as a dual
boot.
I mentioned this in this NG a couple of years back and was told by an MS
employee that it wasn't allowed even though MS assisted me in perpetrating
this high crime.
I challenge MS to sue me,
Alias said:A lot of laws have been changed due to the people breaking them, i.e,
Prohibition. That's why MS hasn't the balls to take anyone to court, for
fear of setting a fair use precedent or having their activation scam
schemes altered or banned.
Yeah, like Bush and Enron, right?
If you could refrain from your patronizing and supercilious insults, I
would appreciate it.