S
Saturn Smith [MSFU]
Do you often snip posts up in your reply without showing that you
snipped it up?
Below is the post you replied to in its entirety:
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.
Do you often snip posts up in your reply without showing that you
snipped it up?
Below is the post you replied to in its entirety:
K
kurttrail
Are you saying that MS pulled a post that was ON the google servers?
If this is true, then it's time to go after the Usenet Moderator for
issuing cancel messages to other servers - as nothing you've done, at
any time, warrants a blanket cancel action on any servers outside of
MS's own servers.
No, MS pulled the post with the google link from their newsgroup
server.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity/index.php?showtopic=3
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
L
Leythos
Do you often snip posts up in your reply without showing that you
snipped it up?
Yep, sure do - when it's the same tired old mantra without any
additional information.
The part that I snipped doesn't make any difference and was summarized
as follows:
1) Until tested in court, we don't know if the licensing agreement will
stand.
2) If the licensing agreement is found to be enforceable and you've
advised your clients and friends to violate it all these years, then
you've opened yourself for a lot of legal problems by ignoring the known
licensing agreement.
3) See #1 and #2 above
4) Nothing Kurt or Alias says in any post will change #1 or #2 above.
What could he have said in the reply that would change the above, what
difference does anyone's OPINION make to #1 and #2 above?
B
Bob I
Perhaps it's the method? Hasn't seemed to hurt MS in the last 5 years
they've been doing it. Times change and so does technology. I haven't
seen software released on diskettes with holes punched in them recently
either.
they've been doing it. Times change and so does technology. I haven't
seen software released on diskettes with holes punched in them recently
either.
M
Mercury Mendez [MSFU]
Yep, sure do - when it's the same tired old mantra without any
additional information.
LOL! And you don't think your a troll! That's how they do it. Snip
out what they don't want to reply to!
The part that I snipped doesn't make any difference and was summarized
as follows:
1) Until tested in court, we don't know if the licensing agreement will
stand.
2) If the licensing agreement is found to be enforceable and you've
advised your clients and friends to violate it all these years, then
you've opened yourself for a lot of legal problems by ignoring the known
licensing agreement.
3) See #1 and #2 above
4) Nothing Kurt or Alias says in any post will change #1 or #2 above.
What could he have said in the reply that would change the above, what
difference does anyone's OPINION make to #1 and #2 above?
What you don't understand is that Until #1 happens, all of MS
licensing claims are suspect, especially ones not mentioned in any
licensing agreement at all, and those for private non-commercial use.
L
Leythos
No, MS pulled the post with the google link from their newsgroup
server.
Thanks for the update, glad to know they are not overstepping their
domain. In the old days we would send a bot to delete posts, but it got
out of hand sometimes and it was accepted that it would not be done any
more, at least not at that level.
K
Kerry Brown
Leythos said:I've personally spoken with several MS licensing people about this and
other issues concerning licensing. Under the OEM agreement, the OEM
decides when a replacement doesn't qualify. The systems builders site
USE TO SAY, that the board can be replaced for repair without
invalidating the license, it can not be "replaced as an upgrade"
without invalidating the license.
The local regional office does not agree with the statements made by
the individuals you talked with, and neither did the rep they had in
from Redmond to talk with us about licensing.
Keep in mind, I got 6 different answers from 6 different people until
I was able to get the regional office to bring in a qualified rep.
Over the past year at many different MS partner and OEM events that I've
been at this question has come up. Every time MS was consistent in saying
that for OEM software the motherboard defines the computer. Lately they've
made a point of bringing it up at events where it's completely out of
context. At one event last November we were told this by the "license
compliance manager - system builder channel - Microsoft Canada" during a
presentation on OEM licensing. If anyone would know it would be her. I am
not saying I agree with this policy, merely reiterating what Microsoft has
been pounding into OEMs over the past year.
Kerry
L
Leythos
LOL! And you don't think your a troll! That's how they do it. Snip
out what they don't want to reply to!
If you want to consider me a troll for snipping crap that's already been
posted hundreds of times, already been replied too hundreds of times,
has not changed, etc... then feel free to consider me a troll, no skin
off my back.
What you don't understand is that Until #1 happens, all of MS
licensing claims are suspect, especially ones not mentioned in any
licensing agreement at all, and those for private non-commercial use.
And what you don't understand is that if found to be valid, since you
were informed of the licensing agreement, if you violated it, you are
liable to all of the people you told to violate it.
This is exactly the point of the entire argument - if you violate it
freely, then you MAY end up screwing yourself and your clients/friends.
L
Leythos
kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys- said:Over the past year at many different MS partner and OEM events that I've
been at this question has come up. Every time MS was consistent in saying
that for OEM software the motherboard defines the computer. Lately they've
made a point of bringing it up at events where it's completely out of
context. At one event last November we were told this by the "license
compliance manager - system builder channel - Microsoft Canada" during a
presentation on OEM licensing. If anyone would know it would be her. I am
not saying I agree with this policy, merely reiterating what Microsoft has
been pounding into OEMs over the past year.
Don't get me wrong, I've had the same thing told to me, and it was
clearly, under the old SB site info, that the motherboard IS the
computer defining part. Under the new rules for SB's, it doesn't include
that in the documents - at least not where I can find it.
U
Uranus Umbaba
If you want to consider me a troll for snipping crap that's already been
posted hundreds of times, already been replied too hundreds of times,
has not changed, etc... then feel free to consider me a troll, no skin
off my back.
<snip>
Snipping is not the problem. It is snipping without showing that you
are snipping that makes you a troll. Understand?
No, I suppose you don't.
L
Leythos
<snip>
Snipping is not the problem. It is snipping without showing that you
are snipping that makes you a troll. Understand?
No, I suppose you don't.
Yes, I understand your opinion, and most times when I snip I do it with
the [snip], as I've done since the early 80's on Usenet. When I see that
something like this thread or the PA or the EULA thread, were it's
always a complete rehash of the same old, it's hardly worth the effort.
Understand?
U
Uranus Umbaba
And what you don't understand is that if found to be valid, since you
were informed of the licensing agreement, if you violated it, you are
liable to all of the people you told to violate it.
It's been thirteen years and still going since MS it has interpreted
its commercial use EULA into private use EULA too, and still they
have yet to sue anyone. If they did try to sue someone, those 13
years are grounds for summary judgment against MS. Due Diligence
requires MS to protect its interpretation of its licensing terms.
This is exactly the point of the entire argument - if you violate it
freely, then you MAY end up screwing yourself and your clients/friends.
I don't have clients. I just have me. And I KNOW the risks, and its
about as risky as clipping my fingernails. My friends are smart
enough to make the own determination of the risks.
U
Uranus Umbaba [MSFU]
Snipping is not the problem. It is snipping without showing that you
are snipping that makes you a troll. Understand?
No, I suppose you don't.
Yes, I understand your opinion, and most times when I snip I do it with
the [snip], as I've done since the early 80's on Usenet. When I see that
something like this thread or the PA or the EULA thread, were it's
always a complete rehash of the same old, it's hardly worth the effort.
Understand?
Yes, when it comes to subjects that you are challenged on, you turn
into a troll.
L
Leythos
It's been thirteen years and still going since MS it has interpreted
its commercial use EULA into private use EULA too, and still they
have yet to sue anyone. If they did try to sue someone, those 13
years are grounds for summary judgment against MS. Due Diligence
requires MS to protect its interpretation of its licensing terms.
I don't have clients. I just have me. And I KNOW the risks, and its
about as risky as clipping my fingernails. My friends are smart
enough to make the own determination of the risks.
Except that endorsing violations of the EULA in public, where others may
believe you are correct, does not make you ethical. If you were to state
it the way that I have here several times, it would not be an issue, but
the simple fact is that if you violate the licensing agreement you don't
know where you are going to end up. Done, Fact, Simple, Easy to
understand.
K
Kerry Brown
Leythos wrote:
I agree the SB license has changed yet again but as little as two weeks ago
I was told by a MS employee at a partner event that the motherboard defined
the computer for OEM purposes. With a company as big as MS it is likely the
left hand doesn't always know what the right is doing. We'll have to wait
and see how the dust settles. Personally I think the whole argument's
irrelevant. As an OEM I suport my customers how I see fit. As I am
responsible for supporting XP if I install the OEM version then I'll do what
I like regarding upgrades and continued support.
Kerry
Don't get me wrong, I've had the same thing told to me, and it was
clearly, under the old SB site info, that the motherboard IS the
computer defining part. Under the new rules for SB's, it doesn't
include that in the documents - at least not where I can find it.
I agree the SB license has changed yet again but as little as two weeks ago
I was told by a MS employee at a partner event that the motherboard defined
the computer for OEM purposes. With a company as big as MS it is likely the
left hand doesn't always know what the right is doing. We'll have to wait
and see how the dust settles. Personally I think the whole argument's
irrelevant. As an OEM I suport my customers how I see fit. As I am
responsible for supporting XP if I install the OEM version then I'll do what
I like regarding upgrades and continued support.
Kerry
G
Gordon
Leythos said:Oh, and you quoted from above " 4.1 We grant you a nonexclusive right
to distribute an individual software license only with a fully
assembled computer system. 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."
Notice the part about "Fully Assembled" and all the parts that make
it a fully assembled computer.
But there is STILL NO MENTION of the fact that you CANNOT change the
motherboard susequently, IS THERE?