Trial copy?

[The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy]

It does not need to be - the EULA is the license agreement to use
Windows. The ability of the product to do a certain function or task
does not need to be covered by a license agreement why would you think
it would ? The functionality of the rearm function is not covered by
the EULA anymore then notepad is - BUT the use of these is usually
dependent on installing the product which IS licensed as per the EULA -
and as such in your loaned for a trial scenario they are NOT licensed so
may not install the product.
You really are clutching at straws now trying desperately to justify
yourself against a very simple licensing issue.



as above


That is because it is relevant to this section about your rights to use
the product on a device. and these are covered by the EULA, since you
have no license you may not use the product.



They are making the point that while you can physically install the
product you do need to be licensed.


Other then them not being linked to by any public page at Microsoft.com
or the result of any search on their sites.
It is also not actaully a Microsoft owned or operated.

Again however this does not matter - as you cannot legitimately install
the software without a license. so irrespective of were you get it from
be that open doors, back doors, loaned or copied; your use of the
product without a license is just plain piracy and not a legitimate way
to evaluate the product.


I hope you do not have such a cavalier attitude to any other contracts
or license agreements you claim to agree to, or do you just pick and
choose what you think applies you from a contract etc? - actually we
don't need an answer; your position as regards your ability to honor
your word when you say you will agree to abide by an agreement is clear
to see from your posts.

Hey Mike Brannigan. Why won't you respond to the thread Alias and I
were posting in? Can't refute my post there, can you?

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"They hacked the Microsoft website to make it think a linux box was a
windows box. Thats called hacking. People who do hacking are called
hackers."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

 

[MICHAEL]

* Mike Brannigan:

It does not need to be - the EULA is the license agreement to use Windows.
The ability of the product to do a certain function or task does not need to
be covered by a license agreement why would you think it would ? The
functionality of the rearm function is not covered by the EULA anymore then
notepad is - BUT the use of these is usually dependent on installing the
product which IS licensed as per the EULA - and as such in your loaned for a
trial scenario they are NOT licensed so may not install the product.
You really are clutching at straws now trying desperately to justify
yourself against a very simple licensing issue.

Show me a Microsoft site or article that says who is allowed or not
allowed to use these functions.

Anyone from Microsoft care to speak up?

as above

Show me a Microsoft site or article that says who is allowed or not
allowed to use these functions.

Anyone from Microsoft care to speak up?

That is because it is relevant to this section about your rights to use the
product on a device. and these are covered by the EULA, since you have no
license you may not use the product.

I will use my install disk however I choose, and I will loan it whenever
I see fit. I will not give out my product key, I will not show someone how
to bypass activation indefinitely, nor will I ever encourage someone to steal.
I always pay for any software that is not free, and typically donate to those
who request it when providing free software that I may use.

They are making the point that while you can physically install the product
you do need to be licensed.

Mike, must you always be so lame? Most reasonable folks around here
are of the mindset that you must be licensed to activate and to have a
legal copy. Most do not say you have to have a license to install.
Since you can install Vista without a key, it seems the EULA throws
up quite a contradiction. Also, it seems to be once you install Vista
without a product key, you are actually (temporarily) licensed to use
Vista by the default key that is used. Once again, Microsoft does not
state anywhere who may or may not use the no key installation.
Where is that documentation?

Other then them not being linked to by any public page at Microsoft.com or
the result of any search on their sites.
It is also not actaully a Microsoft owned or operated.

Oh, but Microsoft knows. Don't be so ignorant.

Again however this does not matter - as you cannot legitimately install the
software without a license. so irrespective of were you get it from be that
open doors, back doors, loaned or copied; your use of the product without a
license is just plain piracy and not a legitimate way to evaluate the
product.

Installing without a product key actually uses a default key,
I am then licensed to use the product until the grace period
has expired. If that were not the case, it would not be allowed
to happen. There's no trick or hack that must be applied, only
a little check box and a click of "next".

I hope you do not have such a cavalier attitude to any other contracts or
license agreements you claim to agree to, or do you just pick and choose
what you think applies you from a contract etc? - actually we don't need an
answer; your position as regards your ability to honor your word when you
say you will agree to abide by an agreement is clear to see from your posts.

There are times when your gut and/or common sense tells you something
is just plain wrong, and that something deserves to be violated. The "rent, lease,
or lend" clause is one of those. Especially, the lend part... utterly ridiculous. More
so with your interpretation of not being able to use it to install on a second machine
that a user owns until another key is bought. Do you know how ridiculous that makes
you look? Obviously, not.

The installing without a product key and using "slmgr -rearm" are allowed,
obviously.

Not once have I suggested someone not pay for Vista if they
plan to use it longer than the grace period. Never.


-Michael

 

[Mike Brannigan]

Hey Mike Brannigan. Why won't you respond to the thread Alias and I were
posting in? Can't refute my post there, can you?

--

I have no idea what you are talking about since I PLONK'd Alias I do not see
his mostly pointless Linux fanboy posts and have no need to reply to them.

 

[Mike Brannigan]

Pat,

If you borrow a DVD and if you decide to try and install it - as you do -
actually read the End User License Agreement that you are about to press
button to agree to be bound by - and as you do so - ask yourself do you own
a license to use this product as it states in the EULA that you must.
If you do not then you cannot agree to the EULA and you will not be able to
install the software.
One other thing to do is look at the DVD you have borrowed - if it is a
Retail DVD then ask your self why am I holding a piece of software that
someone else bought I and I did not and am yet about to install it. (the
same applies but even more so to any other type of DVD e.g. OEM, VL, MSDN
or TechNet_
If it is a copy then the same questions apply and you should be more worried
about using a copied piece of software.

And finally as MICHAEL may cite multiple sources that describe the process
of installing without entering a product key (a process that is there for a
specific purpose for use by licensed person deploying Windows) - none of
this is truly relevant - just because something can be done technically it
does not mean it is permitted under the terms that that product is licensed
for.

If you are in any doubt about any of this - do not listen to anyone here and
ring your local Microsoft subsidiary directly and ask them if they have any
evaluation versions of Windows Vista x64 available for you either to send
you or for you to download.

(MICHAEL can cite who he likes and I can sit here as someone who worked for
Microsoft for 5 years - but the only absolute answer you can get is from
them directly)

 

[The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy]

I have no idea what you are talking about since I PLONK'd Alias I do not
see his mostly pointless Linux fanboy posts and have no need to reply to
them.

It's this thread from yesterday:
"Windows asking me to activate Vista again (activation)"
and you, Alias, and I were posting replies to it.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"They hacked the Microsoft website to make it think a linux box was a
windows box. Thats called hacking. People who do hacking are called
hackers."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

 

[Mike Brannigan]

* Mike Brannigan:

Show me a Microsoft site or article that says who is allowed or not
allowed to use these functions.

Anyone from Microsoft care to speak up?

They are a function of properly licensed Windows Vista product. They do
not need to be qualified anywhere else. All you need to have to use these
deployment tools are the licenses to install those copies of Windows etc.
But this is getting off topic.
If you want to ask about someone building a deployment image for a customer
then again that is OK as they are not using the product but building an
image for someone who is licensed to deploy this, thus effectively using
their licenses - and no this is not like evaluating a product.


as above

Show me a Microsoft site or article that says who is allowed or not
allowed to use these functions.

Anyone from Microsoft care to speak up?

Actually as a recently now ex-employee I can and have

I will use my install disk however I choose, and I will loan it whenever
I see fit. I will not give out my product key, I will not show someone
how
to bypass activation indefinitely, nor will I ever encourage someone to
steal.
I always pay for any software that is not free, and typically donate to
those
who request it when providing free software that I may use.

Do as you wish - but you are in breach of the EULA you agreed to abide by
and therefore your word is worthless.

Mike, must you always be so lame? Most reasonable folks around here
are of the mindset that you must be licensed to activate and to have a
legal copy. Most do not say you have to have a license to install.

Sorry, but ignorance of the EULA that you can read during install and that
you agree to abide by is no excuse.
And frankly it is a pretty poor excuse to use.
The EULA is very clear on this matter - no license then no install.

Since you can install Vista without a key, it seems the EULA throws
up quite a contradiction.

No it does not - you can install the product without entering a product key
and yet STILL have a valid license to use that product. The key is just for
the mandatory activation that is also covered within the EULA having a
license does not mean having a key (VL customers using KMS do not have
multiple keys for their systems)
That is the point of the 30 day grace period and all the tools and
technologies around enterprise deployment processes.
Are you really stupid enough to think that during my last 20,000 seat
deployment of Vista I entered a product key into each machine during an
automated setup that occurred over night - of course not BUT I did have
20,000 licenses for the product prior to deployment.

Also, it seems to be once you install Vista
without a product key, you are actually (temporarily) licensed to use

No, as above. Having a key is not equal to having a license.

Vista by the default key that is used. Once again, Microsoft does not
state anywhere who may or may not use the no key installation.
Where is that documentation?

It does not need to be documented - you are confusing having a key with
having a license. You can be licensed without having a unique key or every
machine.

Oh, but Microsoft knows. Don't be so ignorant.


Installing without a product key actually uses a default key,
I am then licensed to use the product until the grace period
has expired.

No you are not. You do not have a valid license. Again a key and a license
are not synonymous

If that were not the case, it would not be allowed
to happen.

Don't be foolish - as I have now stated a number of times a key and a
license are not the same - so the ability to install without a key can be
done for many reason but those reason are allowed to occur under a valid
license.

There's no trick or hack that must be applied, only
a little check box and a click of "next".



There are times when your gut and/or common sense tells you something
is just plain wrong, and that something deserves to be violated. The
"rent, lease,
or lend" clause is one of those. Especially, the lend part... utterly
ridiculous. More
so with your interpretation of not being able to use it to install on a
second machine
that a user owns until another key is bought. Do you know how ridiculous
that makes
you look? Obviously, not.

No - it actually makes me a person who understands and honors an agreement I
make to use properly licensed paid for software.

The installing without a product key and using "slmgr -rearm" are allowed,
obviously.

Indeed they are IF you are licensed to use the product in the first place.

Not once have I suggested someone not pay for Vista if they
plan to use it longer than the grace period. Never.

I have never accused you of such - but what you have advocated is a clear
breach of the EULA

 

[MICHAEL]

* Mike Brannigan:

They are a function of properly licensed Windows Vista product. They do
not need to be qualified anywhere else. All you need to have to use these
deployment tools are the licenses to install those copies of Windows etc.
But this is getting off topic.
If you want to ask about someone building a deployment image for a customer
then again that is OK as they are not using the product but building an
image for someone who is licensed to deploy this, thus effectively using
their licenses - and no this is not like evaluating a product.



as above


Actually as a recently now ex-employee I can and have


Do as you wish - but you are in breach of the EULA you agreed to abide by
and therefore your word is worthless.


Sorry, but ignorance of the EULA that you can read during install and that
you agree to abide by is no excuse.
And frankly it is a pretty poor excuse to use.
The EULA is very clear on this matter - no license then no install.


No it does not - you can install the product without entering a product key
and yet STILL have a valid license to use that product. The key is just for
the mandatory activation that is also covered within the EULA having a
license does not mean having a key (VL customers using KMS do not have
multiple keys for their systems)
That is the point of the 30 day grace period and all the tools and
technologies around enterprise deployment processes.
Are you really stupid enough to think that during my last 20,000 seat
deployment of Vista I entered a product key into each machine during an
automated setup that occurred over night - of course not BUT I did have
20,000 licenses for the product prior to deployment.


No, as above. Having a key is not equal to having a license.


It does not need to be documented - you are confusing having a key with
having a license. You can be licensed without having a unique key or every
machine.



No you are not. You do not have a valid license. Again a key and a license
are not synonymous


Don't be foolish - as I have now stated a number of times a key and a
license are not the same - so the ability to install without a key can be
done for many reason but those reason are allowed to occur under a valid
license.


No - it actually makes me a person who understands and honors an agreement I
make to use properly licensed paid for software.


Indeed they are IF you are licensed to use the product in the first place.


I have never accused you of such - but what you have advocated is a clear
breach of the EULA

What a predictably long yawn that was.

Mike, you do not work for Microsoft. I am not even impressed that you once
did. You only sound like some preprogrammed popinjay robot. What you have to
say on the matter is not the accepted practice of many enthusiasts and many MVPs.
I guarantee you most people in this forum agree that so long as you purchase
a license if you intend on keeping Vista, installing it without a license and using it
under the "grace period" is reasonable. You keep repeating the small technicalities
of the EULA, I live in the world.... and in the real world, that small clause is unfair,
unacceptable, unenforceable, absurd and therefore, irrelevant. Just like you.

Sometimes, the very strict nature of contracts, laws, governments, causes folks
to take action. Yes, at times that means doing what you feel is right even if
it is in "violation" of something. Things may become accepted as understood
rule or law. Similar to the times when some states still had ridiculous sodomy
laws on the books that most people refused to obey and never got prosecuted for.
Some states didn't come around until the matter finally made it to the Supreme Court.
Been quite a few laws, contract clauses, and copyright laws that don't change until
someone takes it to court. Lots of companies put stupid clauses in EULAs and there
are many times some of the clauses are unenforceable and wouldn't stand up in court.

Have a pleasant evening.


-Michael

 

[Don]

Mike Brannigan wrote:
....

Contrary to what you may have been told.
You may not "borrow"another persons DVD and install from that.
The 30 day period for activation is NOT there to be used as a trial period.
The installation of the software requires that you agreed to be bound
under the terms of the End User License Agreement.
If you do not own a valid license to use this product then your are
effectively pirating the product and using unlicensed software...

First, a confession: in twenty-five years of using Microsoft products
I have never actually read a EULA from start to finish. (There, I feel
better now...)

I believe that MS didn't get to be one of the richest companies in the
world by using stupid marketing practices -- just the opposite.

I think including all of the flavors of Vista on one disk and making
it possible to try them all for 30 days is nothing less than a
brilliant marketing tactic. I personally got started with Vista
by borrowing a disk (yes, I sinned) and installed Business first
because that's my usual bias. I soon decided that Business lacked
some features that I need, and so I finally settled on Ultimate.
Voila, MS won on that sales gambit, even if I began by violating
the EULA (and of course I wouldn't know because I've not read it).

Do you really think that MS would object to that outcome? My guess
is that's the outcome they wanted and gambled on from the get-go.
My suspicion is that the department that writes the EULA is not
the same group that determines marketing strategy. (Nothing more
than a guess, of course ;o)