XP Licensing Laws

[Rhys Morgan]

How many computers can i install a single XP disc onto?!

I have 2 machines and i want XP on both, and having spent
nearly £200 on the disc i am not going to buy another!!!

Am i able to do this or am i in breach of any licensing
laws!?

Any help would be most grateful......

Cheers

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

In order to successfully activate Windows XP on the second
computer, you'll need to purchase a second license (Product Key).
The Windows XP license agreement only permits one installation
of Windows XP on one computer with each Product Key.

Read your Windows XP End-User License Agreement:

Start > Run and type: WINVER , and hit enter.

Also, open XP's "Help and Support" and type: EULA
and click on "Questions and Answers about the
End-User License Agreement".

To purchase an additional Windows XP license, visit:

Additional Licenses for Windows XP Home Edition
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/addlic.asp

Additional licenses for Windows XP Professional
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/addlic.asp


--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--


How many computers can i install a single XP disc onto?!

I have 2 machines and i want XP on both, and having spent
nearly £200 on the disc i am not going to buy another!!!

Am i able to do this or am i in breach of any licensing
laws!?

Any help would be most grateful......

Cheers

 

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

How many computers can i install a single XP disc onto?!

I have 2 machines and i want XP on both, and having spent
nearly £200 on the disc i am not going to buy another!!!

Am i able to do this or am i in breach of any licensing
laws!?

Any help would be most grateful......

Cheers

Rhys,

You may install your copy of Windows XP in accordance with the End User
License Agreement that you must agree to to do the install. It clearly
states that you may install the product on one computer only.
If you have 2 machines and you wish to run Windows XP on both then you will
need to buy an additional license/copy of the product.

Don't think of the Windows opertaing system as something you just put in a
PC and use then put in any other (like a DVD movie of music CD).
Think of it more like a part of your PC (like your CPU or memory).
Yes you can take it out and put it in another PC but if you want 2 working
machines you buy 2 CPUs and 2 sets of memory.
And thus 2 copies of Windows XP.
(This is the same license as we have had for all versions of Windows since
Windows 3.1)

--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

How many computers can i install a single XP disc onto?!

I have 2 machines and i want XP on both, and having spent
nearly £200 on the disc i am not going to buy another!!!

Am i able to do this or am i in breach of any licensing
laws!?

Any help would be most grateful......

Cheers

 

[Shenan T. Stanley]

How many computers can i install a single XP disc onto?!

I have 2 machines and i want XP on both, and having spent
nearly £200 on the disc i am not going to buy another!!!

Am i able to do this or am i in breach of any licensing
laws!?

Any help would be most grateful......

Everyone else gave you longer answers with the whys and such.
Short answer:

You would be in breach of the licensing agreement that you agree to when
installing/using Windows XP if you were to install one Retail/OEM copy on
more than one machine without purchasing an additional license.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Let's apply a little common sense to the question, shall we? Does
your local grocer let you walk out of the market with three loaves of
bread when you've paid for only one? Can you drive two cars home if
you've paid for only one? Does your local clothier allow you to leave
the shop with two shirts if you've purchased only one? Have you
noticed a trend, yet? So where in the world did you ever get the idea
that software manufacturers would sell their product licenses any
differently? In real life, it doesn't matter whether the product
being purchased is a physical item, a service, or a software license -
if all you buy is one, that's all you get.

As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright
laws, if not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each
computer on which it is installed. The only way in which WinXP
licensing differs from that of earlier versions of Windows is that
Microsoft has finally added a copy protection and anti-theft
mechanism, Product Activation, to prevent (or at least make more
difficult) the sort of multiple installations you're asking about.


Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


How many computers can i install a single XP disc onto?!

I have 2 machines and i want XP on both, and having spent
nearly £200 on the disc i am not going to buy another!!!

Am i able to do this or am i in breach of any licensing
laws!?

Any help would be most grateful......

Cheers

 

[Patrick J. LoPresti]

How many times are you going to post these idiotic analogies?

Even Microsoft does not sell all of their software like bread, or
clothes, or cars. For example, go to
<http://www.microsoft.com/office/faq.asp> and search for "laptop". Or
consider site licenses.

If Microsoft wanted to, they could sell Windows with a "household
license" which allowed multiple installations under one roof. This
might hurt their monopoly-driven profit margins, but it would in no
way violate "common sense".

Please stop posting drivel.

- Pat

 

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

Patrick,

How would you like us to enforce your idea of a household license?
How do we prevent you installing more then say 3 copies of Windows XP in you
4 PC house ?
How do you define a "household" ? is it a physical building or those devices
owned by one person (ownership being equally difficult to define).

In the majority of cases most house holds have a single PC.
Persons who purchase multiple PCs will in many cases receive Windows XP with
their new PCs.
This leave a number of users with additional PCs that they are required to
purchase additional copies of Windows XP for if they wish to upgrade them.

User with a significant number of machines in their house may purchase
volume licensed products for 5 or more machines.

--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

 

[Patrick J. LoPresti]

Patrick,

How would you like us to enforce your idea of a household license?
How do we prevent you installing more then say 3 copies of Windows XP in you
4 PC house ?

From the Office XP FAQ (whose link I already sent):

Q. Can I install my copy of Office XP on my home computer and my
laptop?

A. Yes. According to the End User License for Microsoft Software,
you can install and use your retail copy of Office XP on a single
desktop computer and on your laptop, for your exclusive use.

How do you enforce these terms for Office?

Whatever your answer is, mine is the same.

How do you define a "household" ? is it a physical building or those
devices owned by one person (ownership being equally difficult to
define).

The vast majority of households have a very good idea of what
qualifies as "our cars", "our pets", "our televisions"... And "our
computers". In the rare cases where doubts arise ("our son stole our
car!"), the courts can figure it out, just like they have for
centuries.

I highly suspect your lawyers could craft suitable language if you
wanted them to.

Anyway, all of this is irrelevant to my point, which is that Bruce
Chambers keeps posting an idiotic argument. Software is NOTHING like
bread, or cars, or clothes. Your licensing terms are based solely on
your business model, not on "common sense". Quite the contrary, in
fact, as evidenced by the number people who show up here expecting to
install one copy of Windows on both of their machines.

- Pat

 

[David]

Software is NOTHING like bread, or cars, or clothes.

Wrong. The whole point of Copyright is to give the authors of intangible
Property the same rights as a patent holder on tangible property.


--

David

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

http://www.HeroicStories.com/
http://www.thisistrue.com/
http://www.StellaAwards.com/

 

[Patrick J. LoPresti]

Wrong. The whole point of Copyright is to give the authors of
intangible Property the same rights as a patent holder on tangible
property.

Actually, you are wrong on multiple counts.

First, patents apply to intellectual property (like processes), not
tangible property (like cars).

Second, the point of U.S. Copyright is stated expressly in Article I,
Section 8 of the Constitution:

to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Get that? "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Not
"to give authors of intellecutal property the same control as owners
of physical property".

For more information, consult any lawyer trained in intellectual
property. Or just do a Google search for "purpose of copyright".

(Why do people who know nothing find it so hard to say nothing?)

- Pat

 

[David]

Actually, you are wrong on multiple counts.

First, patents apply to intellectual property (like processes), not
tangible property (like cars). The image on a photogragh or painting is

copyrighted. The particular method of making that image can be patented
( ie...Electro-chemical process ) though useally aren't.
You can Patent a new Car Design. A new recipe for Bread, or somethin g
that you hve invented. Youdoon't patent Software. The Car,Bread, and
invention are tangible property. You can tough it. Software is not
tangible property. You can't touch software ( the Media being a seprate
object )

Second, the point of U.S. Copyright is stated expressly in Article I,
Section 8 of the Constitution:

to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
their respective Writings and Discoveries.

"to ptomote the Progress od Science and useful Arts" Such as a book? A
song? A PROGRAM?????

" by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the ESCLUSIVE
RIGHT to thei respective Writings and Discoveries" Microsoft is
excercising it excluve right by stating that it can only be installed on
ONE (1) computer at a time


--

David

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

http://www.HeroicStories.com/
http://www.thisistrue.com/
http://www.StellaAwards.com/

 

[Patrick J. LoPresti]

You can Patent a new Car Design. A new recipe for Bread, or somethin g
that you hve invented. Youdoon't patent Software. The Car,Bread, and
invention are tangible property. You can tough it. Software is not
tangible property. You can't touch software ( the Media being a seprate
object )

The "Chambers Analogy" involved a car (not a car design) and a loaf of
bread (not the recipe). So you are making no sense.

Microsoft is excercising it excluve right by stating that it can
only be installed on ONE (1) computer at a time

Yes, of course Microsoft can license the software however they like.
That is, in fact, entirely my point. They choose their licensing
scheme to maximize profits, not because of "common sense". "One copy
per machine" is only one of many possible licensing schemes; it is
neither more nor less obvious than many others.

This is in contrast to, say, a loaf of bread, where "pay for one, take
one home" is the most obvious model.

OK, I'm done. I have now filled my weekly quota of debating half-wits
on USENET.

- Pat

 

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

Patrick ,

Why do you believe that one copy per machine is not common sense ?

Maybe a better analogy will help, such as the one I posted earlier

Don't think of the Windows opertaing system as something you just put in a
PC and use then put in any other (like a DVD movie of music CD).
Think of it more like a part of your PC (like your CPU or memory).
Yes you can take it out and put it in another PC (deinstall and reinstall)
but if you want 2 working
machines you buy 2 CPUs and 2 sets of memory.
And thus 2 copies of Windows XP.


--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

 

[Patrick J. LoPresti]

Patrick ,

Why do you believe that one copy per machine is not common sense ?

If one copy per machine is so common sense, why isn't Office licensed
that way?

My point, once again, is that there are many software licensing models
available, even from Microsoft itself. These models are based on
revenue generation, not on common sense.

"Buy one loaf of bread, take home one loaf of bread" is common sense.
Software licensing terms are completely different; they are purely the
creative work of software vendors. And they vary from vendor to
vendor and product to product (cf. Office again).

Maybe a better analogy will help, such as the one I posted earlier

Don't think of the Windows opertaing system as something you just put in a
PC and use then put in any other (like a DVD movie of music CD).
Think of it more like a part of your PC (like your CPU or memory).

Oh, I am well aware that this is how Microsoft wants us to think about
Windows. You certainly make more money when it is nigh-impossible to
buy a machine without your product preinstalled!

But the reality is that Windows is just another piece of software.
You could license it however you wanted. You have chosen to model it
after RAM and CPUs, which is your right. But don't tell people they
lack "common sense" when they come here expecting something better.

The fact is that many people expect Windows to be licensed something
like Office (one copy on two machines), and they are dismayed to learn
they have to pay for it twice. The appropriate response to such
people is not to make idiotic analogies to clothes/cars/bread, it is
to correct them politely. And then suggest they switch to Linux.

- Pat

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

What part of the concept of "getting what you pay for" don't you
understand? Should I use smaller words and shorter sentences?

Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

 

[David]

The "Chambers Analogy" involved a car (not a car design) and a loaf of
bread (not the recipe). So you are making no sense.

analogies aren't perfect. I believe Bruce meant to illustrate that you
usually don't get two for the price of one ( Sales and deals not
withstanding ).

Yes, of course Microsoft can license the software however they like.
That is, in fact, entirely my point. They choose their licensing
scheme to maximize profits, not because of "common sense". "One copy
per machine" is only one of many possible licensing schemes; it is
neither more nor less obvious than many others.

Hoe do you propose to enforce this? Allow activation on two computers?
What if I have three? Why should I pay for an extra licence just so I can
install on three computers? How about five, or ten? What computers can I
installit on? Mine and a friends, or a family memeber that may or may not
live with me? What if someone moves and takes one of the computers with
them? Is the license still valid? Things get more complicated as more
systems are allowed. I'm sure MS wouldn't mind if you installed it on the
systems you own. But, they do have a need to stop people from sharing the
Os with their families and half the town.

This is in contrast to, say, a loaf of bread, where "pay for one, take
one home" is the most obvious model.

OK, I'm done. I have now filled my weekly quota of debating half-wits
on USENET.

Dealing with schizophrenia must be difficult.
--

David

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

http://www.HeroicStories.com/
http://www.thisistrue.com/
http://www.StellaAwards.com/

 

[Shenan T. Stanley]

I love these conversations.. It's all moot anyway.

Let's face it - for those who don't want to pay - they likely won't anyway.
There are so many ways around everything being discussed here, so many moral
loopholes that people can jump through that it is ridiculous to even
consider them.

I would love to see Microsoft come out with the following, personally..

Single License (as it is now)
Home/Family License (One license, requiring activation on each PC, up to 5
PCs)
Small Business License (One License, requiring activation on each PC, up to
15 PCs)
Corporate licensing (as it is now)

With pricing in accordance to what you are getting and who the customer
is/purpose.
*shrug* Makes sense to me.

However, there are many people who have NO licenses but are using it on
dozens or more computers.
And even if you had some reasonable license pricing, they likely would not
pay it.

It's all a question of morality, money and know-how.

There are those with strong moral values who diligently buy their individual
copies of Windows. There are others with similar moral values who buy their
copies and also think and express their opinions on how things could be
better. There are those with morals that buy one copy and install dozens of
a "warez" copy on other machines. And there are those who haven't bought a
copy of an OS since their computer came with Windows 95.

Sometimes people complain because it costs too much to keep buying a $200
piece of software for all 4 of their machines. Sometimes people complain
not because it costs too much, but because it seems stupid to HAVE to do
this. Sometimes people don't complain at all and spend their money on
something else or not at all.

Some people can get around the activation because they know how. Others
cannot, but have friends who help them out. Some don't get around the
activation and licensing issues because they don't know how and don't have
friends to help them do it.

It's an argument that has no winners. Even if Microsoft did something like
i suggested, someone would complain there should be other tiers in there.
There are some who will say that it was fine the way it was. There are
still those who will spout "use Linux" or "get a Mac" or even those who say
"Go with BeOS". heh

If you can make all of the people happy - WAY TO GO!
Not gonna happen. heh