Micro$oft's barrack room lawyers attack PC recyclers [was: Cheap 386]
spamtrap
Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> (Paul Sherwin) wrote:
>> "Rob" <robco...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> Does anyone know anywhere that sells cheap 386 etc. I am just after a
>>> bare bones system to run Linux on as a dedicated firewall / server for
>>> ADSL.
>> You may be able to scrounge one for free if you ask around. Failing
>> that, you can find them at car boot sales or the local paper. You
>> could also ask at your local charity shops - they aren't generally
>> allowed to sell old PCs for safety reasons, but they'll often put you
>> in touch with sombody who wants to dispose of one in return for a
>> donation.
> Also look for local ReUseIt charities. I work for one in Cardiff and
> we refurbish old 486s and offer them to the public (with
> monitor/mouse/keyboard) with FreeDOS and a suite of shareware/freeware
> programs. We ask for a donation of about £30 to cover our costs.
>
> New regulations on the disposal of electronic equipment is creating a
> market for such operations, and it is good to see that some use is
> being made of old equipment rather than just going for more landfill.
Anyone catch this on the Register..
Micro$oft doing its bit for recycling, not.
From http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25085.html :
Preinstalled Windows: AARGH! I can't get it off!
By John Lettice [6]
Posted: 30/04/2002 at 11:14 GMT
If a PC shipped with Windows preinstalled, can you remove the OS and
install Linux instead? Well, no, according to Microsoft. A [7]somewhat
obscure Microsoft site aimed at helping schools deal with donated
computers flatly states: "It is a legal requirement that pre-installed
operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine."
If this is intended to mean what it says, then Microsoft is
effectively treating the hardware and the software as a single,
integrated package that you're not allowed to break up. If the
statement is applied without qualification, then you're in breach of
your licence agreement (and/or some bizarre law they've sneaked past
us) if you vape Windows and put something else on instead, or if (as
do many major companies) you buy a bunch of PCs with one MS installed
and then install another. Put this together with Microsoft's campaigns
against [8]Naked PCs,* which make it fairly tricky to buy PCs without
Windows on them because they 'fuel piracy,' and we're tottering on the
brink of the age of compulsory Windows.
But ease up on the paranoia - this is a picture of the world as
Microsoft would like it to be, rather than the one that exists now (we
hope). Microsoft has certainly had some considerable success in
convincing schools that it is a legal requirement, to the extent that
some of them simply parrot the Microsoft web site (here, for example,
is Puyallup School District's take), but it doesn't seem obvious that
it's even a Microsoft licensing requirement, far less a legal one.
According to the Win2k EULA (End User License Agreement, the one we
had handiest): [..]
The machine should include: "All copies of the software on original
disk or CD, including back-up and/or recovery materials; Manuals and
printed materials; End-User License Agreement; Certificate(s) of
Authenticity." And "If the donor cannot provide this documentation, it
is recommended that you decline the donated PC(s)."
Out in the real world it is absurd to expect companies giving PCs to
charity to be able to find all of the documentation three years down
the line, never mind dig it out and hand it over as well. So it'd be
simpler for them just to hand over the machine as a Naked PC, then the
school could... Ah yes, but it is "a legal requirement that..." Catch
22.
[10]A Tunney Act submission to the DoJ that we'd missed until now
covers this area in some considerable detail. Bruce Buckelew, a
retired computer professional running computer reuse facilities for
Oakland schools, is at the sharp end of this one and argues: "The
administration of the EULA for MS Windows 95 and Windows 98 attempts
to obsolete millions of perfectly good computers by preventing the use
of MS Windows products EVEN THOUGH THESE PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN PAID FOR.
The effect on schools, non profits and the poor, not to mention the
environment, is devastating."
Most recyclers, he says, "want to lay low and not take MS on," which
is of course a perfectly prudent point of view. His organisation gets
donated computers, then finds itself buying and installing new
software even when it's "pretty sure" the software on the machine is
licensed already. He also points out that it's difficult and more
expensive to source older operating software that will actually run on
older machines, because Microsoft pushes its new software, which
won't.
Buckelew reproduces what he claims is an internal Microsoft memo, from
Robin Willett of the Microsoft Education Solutions Group, which seems
to give a little background to the setting up of the web site. "This
[i.e. the web site] will include clear messaging of the legal
requirement that the original OS stay with the machine and that naked
machines should not be accepted." A "simple online license transfer
tool" is mooted, but beware, this: " Allows us to capture customer
data from those donating PCs and transferring the OS licenses that can
be audited later."
* Don't bother telling us the links don't work. They'll surely have
nailed them all by now.
References
6. mailto:john.l...@theregister.co.uk
7. http://www.microsoft.com/education/?id=DonatedComputers
8. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/15040.html
9. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf
?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/10193037769515227.xml
10. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/public/25/mtc-00024074.htm
Craig
> Anyone catch this on the Register..
> Micro$oft doing its bit for recycling, not.
> From http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25085.html :
<Huge snip>
Bill Gates infamous vision of a computer in every home? More like microsoft
product(s) in every home.
--
(o_ .----------------------------------------.
//\ | Craig Butcher | http://www.wizball.co.uk|
V_/_ | - Using Debian GNU/Linux - |
`----------------------------------------'
Dave B
> If a PC shipped with Windows preinstalled, can you remove the OS and
> install Linux instead? Well, no, according to Microsoft. A [7]somewhat
> obscure Microsoft site aimed at helping schools deal with donated
> computers flatly states: "It is a legal requirement that pre-installed
> operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine."
>
> If this is intended to mean what it says, then Microsoft is
> effectively treating the hardware and the software as a single,
> integrated package that you're not allowed to break up.
The Register is a very good site, but its been guilty of Windows bashing on
more than one occasion and here its not only quoting out of context, its
delibrately misinterpreting the text.
What Microsoft is actually saying is that Windows is licenced to a machine
not, as the Register is trying to persuade you, that a machine is licenced
to Windows. Thus if you give the machine away, you MUST give the Windows
licence with it - or as the MS site puts it: "It is a legal requirement that
pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the
machine."
In the past, companies have tried to donate the PC while retaining the
Windows licence for themselves - thus avoiding paying MS for a new copy of
Windows to go with the new PC. This, rightly or wrongly, is what MS is
trying to crack down on.
I vaguely remember a thread on this newsgroup on whether a machine (as
oppossed to a person) can be a licence holder. MS apparently think so.
Personnaly, if I were in charge of MS, I'd give Windows & Office away to
schools for free. What better way to ensure business buys MS software than
to ensure that all future employees already know MS software? Mind you, the
education market is one of the few serious footholds Apple have left, so it
would probably be deemed anti-competitive (when MS tried to give $500,000 of
software to schools as part of the US settlement Apple had it stopped on
these grounds).
Dave B.
Paddy Bresnahan
> In the past, companies have tried to donate the PC while retaining the
> Windows licence for themselves - thus avoiding paying MS for a new copy of
> Windows to go with the new PC. This, rightly or wrongly, is what MS is
> trying to crack down on.
Hmm... the following came from microsoft.com. The company removed the webpage
shortly before they took the stand over their anti-competitive behaviour.
I wonder why.
_________________________________________________________________
| *** here's the Microsoft text, which is labelled 'English, holding':
|
| WHAT IS A NAKED PC?
|
| Naked PCs are those sold without operating systems preinstalled.
| Machines are useless until customers install system software
| themselves. It's like selling a house without a roof. And, in the end,
| it leaves your customer just as exposed.
|
| SELL YOUR CUSTOMER A SOLUTION, NOT A PROBLEM?
|
| Your customers depend on you. Trouble is, if you act on your
| customers' willingness to buy Naked PCs - knowing full well they are
| at risk of acquiring pirated operating systems elsewhere - you expose
| them to legal risks, viruses, and frustrating technical troubles.
| Hardly the stuff of great business relationships, particularly when
| they come back to you for help. And even if your customer manages to
| illegally acquire and install operating systems elsewhere, it still
| costs them far more time and money than they bargained for.
That last sentence of twaddle from Micro$oft is particularly weird - the
insinuation is that (non-Micro$oft) operating systems are in some way
illegal to acquire and to install. WTF?
| No matter how you look at them, Naked PCs are bad for your customers.
| Which means they are also bad for you.
| WHAT TO SAY. HOW TO COMPETE.
| Highlight the fact that the PC will not work without an operating
| system. Mention that preinstalling the operating system on the new PC
| saves considerable time, expense and trouble. After all, your
| expertise is valuable. You install system software day in, day out, so
| there is little question you're best equipped to do it well.
| Warn customers that acquiring the PC "naked" and subsequently pirating
| the software is never a good option. Explain the risks: technical
| troubles, upgrade problems, viruses and the law. Politely decline to
| expose your buyers or their businesses to such troubles.
| Point out the benefits of a legally licensed, preinstalled operating
| system.
Will any old operating system do? Or does Micro$oft have a particular
operating system in mind? Waddabout GNU/Linux? It's free, you know!
| Customers have the original CD so they can reload the
| software. They also have a manual for everyday troubleshooting,
Can someone kindly remind me what an OEM Micro$oft Windows manual looks like
these days. Mine (WinXPHome) has about ten pages of Telly Tubby-style
pictures and almost nothing else. Is the manual useful for
"everyday troubleshooting"? I think not!
| and a Certificate of Authenticity that proves the software is legal.
| In short, protect your customer and your good name. Sell your PCs
| fully equipped with legally licensed operating systems preinstalled.
| Otherwise, who knows what you're leaving your customers - and yourself
| - open to?
Install Linux for free, and wave goodbye to Micro$oft, for ever :)
|| Linux is a free Unix-type operating system originally
|| created by Linus Torvalds with the assistance of
|| developers around the world. Developed under
|| the GNU General Public License , the source code
|| for Linux is freely available to everyone. Click on
|| the link below to find out more about the
|| operating system that is causing a revolution in
|| the world of computers.
|| http://www.linux.org
Richard Jones
: In the past, companies have tried to donate the PC while retaining the
: Windows licence for themselves - thus avoiding paying MS for a new copy of
: Windows to go with the new PC. This, rightly or wrongly, is what MS is
: trying to crack down on.
And this is wrong why?
If the new owner of the PC puts Linux on it, I can't see what
is morally wrong here at all. Daft EULAs aside, why shouldn't
a Windows license be completely transferred from one machine
to another?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones <ri...@annexia.org> http://www.annexia.org/
John Winters
Dave B <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
[snip]
>What Microsoft is actually saying is that Windows is licenced to a machine
>not, as the Register is trying to persuade you, that a machine is licenced
>to Windows. Thus if you give the machine away, you MUST give the Windows
>licence with it - or as the MS site puts it: "It is a legal requirement that
>pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the
>machine."
No, you don't *have* to give the software or the licence with the machine.
It's perfectly acceptable to wipe the software off the machine and use
the original discs as coasters. There is no legal requirement for the
software to remain with the machine. Microsoft do at least appear
guilty of phrasing it in a way designed to confuse (or possibly
it's just incompetence). The emphasis is being put in the wrong place.
They should say "The software is useless without the original machine",
rather than "The original machine is useless without the software".
>In the past, companies have tried to donate the PC while retaining the
>Windows licence for themselves - thus avoiding paying MS for a new copy of
>Windows to go with the new PC. This, rightly or wrongly, is what MS is
>trying to crack down on.
Now there you're probably correct. If you (or anyone) wishes to *continue
using* the software then it appears that it can only be on the original
machine.
[snip]
>Personnaly, if I were in charge of MS, I'd give Windows & Office away to
>schools for free. What better way to ensure business buys MS software than
>to ensure that all future employees already know MS software?
They do (at least in the US). The downside is that the educational
institution must undertake never to use or teach any other software.
I think that's too high a price to pay.
John
--
John Winters. Wallingford, Oxon, England.
The Linux Emporium - the source for Linux CDs in the UK
See http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/
jeff woonton
> : In the past, companies have tried to donate the PC while retaining the
> : Windows licence for themselves - thus avoiding paying MS for a new copy of
> : Windows to go with the new PC. This, rightly or wrongly, is what MS is
> : trying to crack down on.
>
> And this is wrong why?
>
> If the new owner of the PC puts Linux on it, I can't see what
> is morally wrong here at all. Daft EULAs aside, why shouldn't
> a Windows license be completely transferred from one machine
> to another?
>
> Rich.
>
not just 'open the packet', I can't see they have a leg to stand on,
particularly as you bought the machine from a third party.
As long as you wipe Windows from the machine before you dispose of
it, you must be free to do what you wish with *your* copy of
Windows, as long as you don't make further copies of it.
Regards
Jeff
Phil Britton
> [SNIP]
> > If a PC shipped with Windows preinstalled, can you remove the OS and
> > install Linux instead? Well, no, according to Microsoft. A [7]somewhat
> > obscure Microsoft site aimed at helping schools deal with donated
> > computers flatly states: "It is a legal requirement that pre-installed
> > operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine."
> >
> > If this is intended to mean what it says, then Microsoft is
> > effectively treating the hardware and the software as a single,
> > integrated package that you're not allowed to break up.
>
> The Register is a very good site, but its been guilty of Windows bashing on
> more than one occasion and here its not only quoting out of context, its
> delibrately misinterpreting the text.
>
I had a read of the text and came to a very similar conclusion to the Register.
What exactly in the text do you think they are misrepresnting or
misinterpreting. I'd also like to know what you mean by the phrase "been guilty
of Windows bashing". Have they been printing things that are untrue ?
> What Microsoft is actually saying is that Windows is licenced to a machine
> not, as the Register is trying to persuade you, that a machine is licenced
> to Windows. Thus if you give the machine away, you MUST give the Windows
> licence with it - or as the MS site puts it: "It is a legal requirement that
> pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the
> machine."
Hang on a minute, I though that when I pay Microsoft for a copy of windows
then the licence belongs to me. Whether I buy that licence direct from
Microsoft, from a shop, or pay someone like PC world to install it for me on a
PC that I'm buying from them.
> In the past, companies have tried to donate the PC while retaining the
> Windows licence for themselves - thus avoiding paying MS for a new copy of
> Windows to go with the new PC. This, rightly or wrongly, is what MS is
> trying to crack down on.
>
Then why don't they say that.
> I vaguely remember a thread on this newsgroup on whether a machine (as
> oppossed to a person) can be a licence holder. MS apparently think so.
>
I doubt whether a machine can enter into legally binding agreement.
> Personnaly, if I were in charge of MS, I'd give Windows & Office away to
> schools for free. What better way to ensure business buys MS software than
> to ensure that all future employees already know MS software? Mind you, the
> education market is one of the few serious footholds Apple have left, so it
> would probably be deemed anti-competitive (when MS tried to give $500,000 of
> software to schools as part of the US settlement Apple had it stopped on
> these grounds).
I'm sure that MS has very good reasons for not giving away it's software to
schools, apart from it being anti-competitive,
cheers
Phil
Graham Murray
> If a PC shipped with Windows preinstalled, can you remove the OS and
> install Linux instead? Well, no, according to Microsoft. A [7]somewhat
> obscure Microsoft site aimed at helping schools deal with donated
> computers flatly states: "It is a legal requirement that pre-installed
> operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine."
I would think that any company donating a PC *should* wipe the hard
disk. Not could there be company confidential information on it, but
it could be a breach of the DPA if any personal data is still
accessible.
Mike
"Dave B" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EvGz8.849$xa.7...@news8-gui.server.ntli.net...
> What Microsoft is actually saying is that Windows is licenced to a machine
> not, as the Register is trying to persuade you, that a machine is licenced
> to Windows. Thus if you give the machine away, you MUST give the Windows
> licence with it - or as the MS site puts it: "It is a legal requirement
that
> pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the
> machine."
I have looked through the OEM license I cannot find anything to back this
up. If a computer is faulty and is replaced, you do not buy another OEM
license. Their is no legal requirement that says you cannot sell the
hardware
by itself, or that you cannot upgrade it, MS cannot dictate that when you
buy a computer, you have to use the operating system that came with
it for the rest of it's life until it is scrapped.
> In the past, companies have tried to donate the PC while retaining the
> Windows licence for themselves - thus avoiding paying MS for a new copy of
> Windows to go with the new PC. This, rightly or wrongly, is what MS is
> trying to crack down on.
Very wrongly, a OEM license is permission to use the program on a single
computer, it does put a serial number of the computer as a restriction.
Some OEM licenceses only work on a specific brand of computer, eg
Dell, but even then, their is nothing to stop you replacing faulty hardware,
upgrading etc.
> I vaguely remember a thread on this newsgroup on whether a machine (as
> oppossed to a person) can be a licence holder. MS apparently think so.
Cannot find anything in the license to support this.
Cheers
Mike
Tony Houghton
John Winters <jo...@linuxemporium.co.uk> wrote:
> Now there you're probably correct. If you (or anyone) wishes to *continue
> using* the software then it appears that it can only be on the original
> machine.
At what point does an upgraded PC stop being the original machine? Every
single component, including the case, of my PC has been replaced, but it
didn't get replaced all at once. It's still "my PC", doing the same sort
of stuff I always did with it, only better and faster. I've always
sold/given away the old parts separately, not as a whole working PC. Is
my Windows licence still valid for "my PC"?
--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
Mike
"Mike" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:aaol9c$7qa$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> computer, it does put a serial number of the computer as a restriction.
Sorry, should read does not
Cheers
Mike
Robert Newson
Not, apparently, if it's XP
Skraedder
news:5svma...@4ax.com...
>
> The machine should include: "All copies of the software on
original
> disk or CD, including back-up and/or recovery materials;
Manuals and
> printed materials; End-User License Agreement;
Certificate(s) of
> Authenticity." And "If the donor cannot provide this
documentation, it
> is recommended that you decline the donated PC(s)."
>
Illegal contract terms. Isn't there a law against this sort of thing?
--
Skræðer
Nick Kew
at the keyboard of "Dave B" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> The Register is a very good site, but its been guilty of Windows bashing on
> more than one occasion and here its not only quoting out of context, its
> delibrately misinterpreting the text.
John Lettice is indeed often keen to put the boot into M$. While his
interpretation of the words may be tongue-in-cheek, those he quotes
do seem to support his argument.
> to Windows. Thus if you give the machine away, you MUST give the Windows
> licence with it - or as the MS site puts it: "It is a legal requirement that
> pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the
> machine."
Isn't that precisely the complaint he's making? If the M$ license went
in the bin five years ago, why should that stop you selling or giving
away the hardware, or anyone else accepting it?
> Personnaly, if I were in charge of MS, I'd give Windows & Office away to
> schools for free. What better way to ensure business buys MS software than
> to ensure that all future employees already know MS software?
Getting into bed with our Prime Minister seems to be favourite - they're
trying very hard to make Windoze a prerequisite for accessing govt services,
some of which we may be required by law to access. But then, Gates
and Blair are birds of a feather: very slick packaging on a totally
shoddy product.
--
Nick Kew
Available for contract work - Programming, Unix, Networking, Markup, etc.
Gareth Jones
>In uk.comp.os.linux Dave B <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>: In the past, companies have tried to donate the PC while retaining the
>: Windows licence for themselves - thus avoiding paying MS for a new copy of
>: Windows to go with the new PC. This, rightly or wrongly, is what MS is
>: trying to crack down on.
>
>And this is wrong why?
It is a violation of the license, which you have agreed to. If you
haven't agreed to the license, then you are not entitled to use the
software. That is the legal position - which, of course, has nothing
to do with what is morally right and wrong.
>If the new owner of the PC puts Linux on it, I can't see what
>is morally wrong here at all. Daft EULAs aside, why shouldn't
>a Windows license be completely transferred from one machine
>to another?
In a discussion of the license terms, it is hard to set the "daft
EULA" aside....if you think the EULA is daft, don't agree to it - and
don't use the software.
Gareth
Gareth Jones
>>And this is wrong why?
>
>It is a violation of the license, which you have agreed to. If you
>haven't agreed to the license, then you are not entitled to use the
>software. That is the legal position - which, of course, has nothing
>to do with what is morally right and wrong.
Sorry - when I say "that is the legal position" - I should say that is
what microsoft seem to think the legal position is. I'm not sure
exactly what (if anything) the legal position of an EULA is.
Gareth
Dave B
"Paddy Bresnahan" <pbres...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fqfna...@4ax.com...
> | And even if your customer manages to
> | illegally acquire and install operating systems elsewhere, it still
> | costs them far more time and money than they bargained for.
>
> That last sentence of twaddle from Micro$oft is particularly weird - the
> insinuation is that (non-Micro$oft) operating systems are in some way
> illegal to acquire and to install. WTF?
I may be grasping at straws here, but perhaps this is a reference to that
beloved marketing device of computer companies everywhere: TCO (Total Cost
of Ownership) ?
This is were one company can say "although you paid £1,000 per unit with
competitor X, its more like £2,500 per unit when you factor in the costs of
employing an additional support person and downtime. Buy our more expensive
equivalent, and the TCO is only £1,500 because [insert bogus reasoning
here]".
The argument goes that illegally obtained OSs come without support or
documentation so the low initial cost actually have a very high TOC. The
beauty of TOC is you can apply whatever value you like to whatever
intangiables you like.
Yes, I can spell spurious (it one of the few :-) )!
As you say elsewhere, Windows doesn't come with a proper manual anymore. And
if you read the small print if you copy of Windows came with the PC its the
PC manufactor whom you have the support agreement with, not MS.
[SNIP]
> | Point out the benefits of a legally licensed, preinstalled operating
> | system.
>
> Will any old operating system do? Or does Micro$oft have a particular
> operating system in mind? Waddabout GNU/Linux? It's free, you know!
Wasn't there was a Windows animsty a while back where you if had bought a PC
with Windows preinstalled on it you could return the disks for a £50? refund
on the basis you were going to install Linux (or some other platform). This
isn't the link I was looking for, but it covers the same territory:
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9901/25/winrefund.idg/
> | Customers have the original CD so they can reload the
> | software. They also have a manual for everyday troubleshooting,
>
> Can someone kindly remind me what an OEM Micro$oft Windows manual looks
like
> these days. Mine (WinXPHome) has about ten pages of Telly Tubby-style
> pictures and almost nothing else. Is the manual useful for
> "everyday troubleshooting"? I think not!
MS wanted to stop supplying Windows CDs to reduce piracy - you got just a
"recovery" disk that wouldn't work without the information in a "protected"
section of the PC (no idea how this worked. A special key in the bootsector
perhaps?).
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/05/01/000501opfoster.xml
I've not bought a PC myself for a while, so I don't know the outcome. MS
used the "modern OSes are so stable you don't have to reinstall" argument.
Tell that to anyone whose lost an installation to a virus!
> | and a Certificate of Authenticity that proves the software is
legal.
> | In short, protect your customer and your good name. Sell your PCs
> | fully equipped with legally licensed operating systems preinstalled.
> | Otherwise, who knows what you're leaving your customers - and yourself
> | - open to?
In addition to the certificate, all the laptops to pass through my hands the
last few years have had a holographic sticker attached to the underside of
the unit with the licence number of the pre-installed OS.
> Install Linux for free, and wave goodbye to Micro$oft, for ever :)
Please don't - at least not while I'm still earning my living from MS
software!
Dave B
news:32onaa...@jarl.webthing.com...
> In article <EvGz8.849$xa.7...@news8-gui.server.ntli.net>, one of infinite
monkeys
> at the keyboard of "Dave B" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > to Windows. Thus if you give the machine away, you MUST give the Windows
> > licence with it - or as the MS site puts it: "It is a legal requirement
that
> > pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of
the
> > machine."
>
> Isn't that precisely the complaint he's making? If the M$ license went
> in the bin five years ago, why should that stop you selling or giving
> away the hardware, or anyone else accepting it?
My phrasing may not have clear. What I was trying to convey is that you
can't transfer the licence seperately to the PC. You can do what you like
with the PC, but you can't do what you like with the licence.
[SNIP]
Paddy Bresnahan
>> John Winters <jo...@linuxemporium.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Now there you're probably correct. If you (or anyone) wishes to *continue
>>> using* the software then it appears that it can only be on the original
>>> machine.
>> At what point does an upgraded PC stop being the original machine? Every
>> single component, including the case, of my PC has been replaced, but it
>> didn't get replaced all at once. It's still "my PC", doing the same sort
>> of stuff I always did with it, only better and faster. I've always
>> sold/given away the old parts separately, not as a whole working PC. Is
>> my Windows licence still valid for "my PC"?
That's what I was wondering. It is a common occurence for a motherboard
and drives to be replaced 'during the lifetime of the PC', so if Micro$oft
is taking digital fingerprints of the m/b and HDs to detect when their
cruddying software is being moved from one machine to another, imvho, it's
a whole lot easier not to install Micro$oft products in the first place.
After all, I can't think it's much fun having some jackbooted FAST official
turning up at one's premises demanding to audit all the Micro$oft software
that is on site.
(For those who haven't encounted them yet, FAST are the Micro$oft sockpuppets
who falsely claim to have a lawful right of entry onto your premises for
software auditing purposes).
--
STOP PRESS: Open Office 1.0 released today - download it now, for free!
OpenOffice.org 1.0 is a full-featured office productivity suite that
provides a near drop-in replacement for Microsoft Office. Users report
that little or no training is required for people migrating from other
office suites - everything works the way people expect.
The _free_ office productivity software suite features key desktop
applications - including word processor, spreadsheet, presentation and
drawing programs - in more than 25 languages. In addition,
OpenOffice.org 1.0 works transparently with a variety of file formats,
enabling users to exchange documents freely with users of with other
office suites, such as Microsoft Office and StarOffice [tm] 6.0
software. OpenOffice.org 1.0 software runs stably and natively on
multiple platforms, including Linux, PPC Linux, Solaris [tm], Windows
and many other flavors of nix.This makes it an ideal first step in a
migration strategy towards completely open-source computing.
Gareth Jones
>(For those who haven't encounted them yet, FAST are the Micro$oft sockpuppets
>who falsely claim to have a lawful right of entry onto your premises for
>software auditing purposes).
They don't have a right to enter, but they can certainly try to get a
warrant to allow them to enter.....I can't remember what the warrant
is called....
Gareth
Dave B
news:uu1psz...@phil-britton.com...
on
> > more than one occasion and here its not only quoting out of context, its
> > delibrately misinterpreting the text.
> >
>
> I had a read of the text and came to a very similar conclusion to the
Register.
> What exactly in the text do you think they are misrepresnting or
> misinterpreting.
enter register article) :
"If a PC shipped with Windows preinstalled, can you remove the OS and
install Linux instead? Well, no, according to Microsoft. A [7]somewhat
obscure Microsoft site aimed at helping schools deal with donated
computers flatly states: "It is a legal requirement that pre-installed
operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine.""
(a) I don't think anything can "Flatly state" when its quoted entirely out
of context. This quoted line is one sentence from a mutliple sentence answer
in a Q & A section.
(b) "Well, no, according to Microsoft" implies a rather direct statement of
fact on behalf of MS. Whereas the actual case (as the paragraph goes on to
show) requires interpretating MS statements. I fully realise that MS
articles (like all public statemtents now adays) require interpretation
because no company dares come out and say things directly anymore, but this
is a rather... agressive... interpretation.
(c) Partisan terminology. For example. a phrases like "somewhat obscure
Microsoft site" implies that this information is hidden away somewhere MS
hopes people aren't going to look, when in fact its simply one rather
unimportant page out of (I guess) 10s of thousands of other pages.
I could go on, but then I'd be guilty of doing what I suggested the Register
were doing! :-)
> I'd also like to know what you mean by the phrase "been guilty
> of Windows bashing".
They report anything MS does with the same impartially that certain
newspapers report on europe. While I approve of a healthy skeptisim with
respect to the actions of multi-nationals (they are in it money after all),
I disapprove of seeing reds under every bed.
>Have they been printing things that are untrue ?
I would say they have been printing opinions rather than fact. Whether an
opinion can be said to be true or untrue can only be determined by the
author. Would I bother reading the Register if all they printed was plain
fact with no opinion? No I wouldn't.
> > What Microsoft is actually saying is that Windows is licenced to a
machine
> > not, as the Register is trying to persuade you, that a machine is
licenced
> > to Windows. Thus if you give the machine away, you MUST give the Windows
> > licence with it - or as the MS site puts it: "It is a legal requirement
that
> > pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of
the
> > machine."
>
> Hang on a minute, I though that when I pay Microsoft for a copy of windows
> then the licence belongs to me. Whether I buy that licence direct from
> Microsoft, from a shop, or pay someone like PC world to install it for me
on a
> PC that I'm buying from them.
IANAL, but the key point here is that you do not own the software.
Micrsosoft own the software. What they have sold you (in the form of a
licence) is the right to use that software subject to a series of terms and
conditions. One of these terms is that you can only use the software on one
PC (ever).
> > In the past, companies have tried to donate the PC while retaining the
> > Windows licence for themselves - thus avoiding paying MS for a new copy
of
> > Windows to go with the new PC. This, rightly or wrongly, is what MS is
> > trying to crack down on.
> >
>
> Then why don't they say that.
Dunno. Persumably for the reason that plain English is rarely present in
licence agreements.
> > I vaguely remember a thread on this newsgroup on whether a machine (as
> > oppossed to a person) can be a licence holder. MS apparently think so.
> >
>
> I doubt whether a machine can enter into legally binding agreement.
There are three problems with software licencing that are (as far as I know)
yet to be tried in a court of law:
(a) Can software be licenced to a machine (as opposed to a person)
(b) Can you be held to terms & conditions that were not brought to your
attention when you bought the software (i.e. the EULA)
(c) Since the installation was done by the manufactor, isn't the
contract between the manufactor and MS. Can you as a third party be held to
the terms of their ageements?
> > Personnaly, if I were in charge of MS, I'd give Windows & Office away to
> > schools for free. What better way to ensure business buys MS software
than
> > to ensure that all future employees already know MS software? Mind you,
the
> > education market is one of the few serious footholds Apple have left, so
it
> > would probably be deemed anti-competitive (when MS tried to give
$500,000 of
> > software to schools as part of the US settlement Apple had it stopped on
> > these grounds).
>
> I'm sure that MS has very good reasons for not giving away it's software
to
> schools, apart from it being anti-competitive,
If so (and there could be), I'd like to know what it is. I'd think there
would be more money for MS in the long run by giving the software away to
schools & Universities.
>
> cheers
>
> Phil
Mike
>
> My phrasing may not have clear. What I was trying to convey is that you
> can't transfer the licence seperately to the PC. You can do what you like
> with the PC, but you can't do what you like with the licence.
Where do you get this from? People have successfully refused to
accept an OEM license and returned it for a credit.
Cheers
Mike
Mike
"Robert Newson" <cigm...@uk.co.fsnet.bullet3> wrote in message
news:3CD0079...@uk.co.fsnet.bullet3...
> Not, apparently, if it's XP
You can upgrade a computer with XP, it just might require re-activation,
that's all.
Cheers
Mike
Mike
"Gareth Jones" <gar...@uberdog.net> wrote in message
news:8vd0dukbfn25h1sja...@4ax.com...
> "Richard Jones" <ri...@i-dont-like-spam-annexia.org> wrote:
> It is a violation of the license, which you have agreed to. If you
> haven't agreed to the license, then you are not entitled to use the
> software. That is the legal position - which, of course, has nothing
> to do with what is morally right and wrong.
I have looked at my OEM license for Win2K and I cannot
find any reference to this. Are you assuming this?
Cheers
Mike
Paddy Bresnahan
They, FAST (and BSA, the other Micro$oft lapdogs) might not have an absolute
right of entry but that hasn't stopped them from claiming that they have.
I'm still looking for the article in which a lawyer warned businesses
against letting FAST 'officials' onto their premises (without an order):
Here's a dated post regarding the type of Order FAST and BSA use:
From: Martin Kurrein <mkur...@mkurrein.co.uk>
Subject: Re: England ATTACKS ON REMAILERS
Date: 1996/05/17
Message-ID: <vkAuBEAE...@mkurrein.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.legal
You have to be a bit careful on this.
The English Civil Courts will grant an Order to allow a person to enter
your home/office etc. in order to search for and/or remove items
relating to breach of copyright in appropriate cases.
Such orders have certainly been granted re unauthorised use of software
by businesses (Daily Mirror was one I recall - FAST got the Order).
They are commonly granted in respect of "trade secrets".
The Order normally allows the occupier to seek legal advice before
allowing entry - and to apply to the Court to set it aside.
Failure to obey the Order is a contempt of Court - punishable (in
appropriate cases) with imprisonment.
For those particularly interested the following is the "pro forma" of
such Orders.
IMPORTANT:
NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT
(1) This order orders you to allow the persons mentioned below to enter
the premises described in the order and to search for, examine and
remove or copy the articles specified in the order. This part of the
order is subject to restrictions. The order also requires you to hand
over any of the articles which are under your control and to provide
information to the plaintiff's solicitors, and prohibits you from doing
certain acts. You should read the terms of the order very carefully.
You are advised to consult a solicitor as soon as possible.
(2) Before you the defendant or the person appearing to be in control
of the premises allow anybody onto the premises to carry out this order
you are entitled to have the solicitor who serves you with this order
explain to you what it means in every day language.
(3) You are entitled to insist that there is nobody [or nobody except
Mr ...] present who could gain commercially from anything he might read
or see on your premises.
(4) You are entitled to refuse to permit entry before 9.30 am or after
5.30 pm or at all on Saturday and Sunday.
(5) You are entitled to seek legal advice, and to ask the Court to vary
or discharge this order, providing you do so at once, and provided that
meanwhile you permit the supervising solicitor (who is a solicitor
acting independently of the plaintiff) and the plaintiff's solicitor to
enter, but not start to search: see para 3.
(6) If you ... the defendant disobey this order you will be guilty of
contempt of Court and may be [sent to prison or] fined or your assets
seized.
THE ORDER
An application was made today [date] by counsel [or solicitors] for ...
the plaintiff to Mr Justice [...]. Mr Justice [...] heard the
application and read the affidavits listed in Sch 6 at the end of this
order.
As a result of the application IT IS ORDERED by Mr Justice [...] that:
Entry and search of premises and vehicles on the premises
1. (1) The defendant must allowed Mr/Mrs/Miss ...: ('the supervising
solicitor'), together with Mr ... a solicitor of the Supreme Court, and
a partner in the firm of the plaintiff's solicitors ... and up to ...
other persons being [their capacity] accompanying them, to enter the
premises mentioned in Sch 1 to this order and any vehicles on the
premises so that they can search for, inspect, photograph or photocopy,
and deliver into the safekeeping of the plaintiff's solicitors all the
documents and articles which are listed in Sch 2 to this order ('the
listed items') or which Mr ... believes to be listed items. The
defendant must allow those persons to remain on the premises until the
search is complete, and if necessary to re-enter the premises on the
same or the following day in order to complete the search.
(2) This order must be complied with either by the defendant
himself or by a responsible employee of the defendant or by the person
appearing to be in control of the premises.
(3) This order requires the defendant or his employee or the
person appearing to be in control of the premises to permit entry to the
premises immediately the order is served upon him, except as stated in
para 3 below.
Restrictions on the service and carrying out of para 1 of this order
2. Paragraph 1 of this order is subject to the following restrictions.
(1) This order may only be served between 9.30 am and 5.30 pm on a
weekday.
(2) This order may not be carried out at the same time as any
police search warrant.
(3) This order must be served by the supervising solicitor, and
para 1 of the order must be carried out in his presence and under his
supervision. [At least one of the persons accompanying him as provided
by para 1 of this order shall be a woman.]
(4) This order does not require the person served with the order
to allow anyone [or anyone except Mr ...] who could gain commercially
from anything he might read or see on the premises if the person served
with the order objects.
(5) No item may be removed from the premises until a list of the
items to be removed has been prepared, and a copy of the list has been
supplied to the person served with the order, and he has been given a
reasonable opportunity to check the list.
(6) The premises must not be searched, and items must not be
removed from them, except in the presence of the defendant or a person
appearing to be a responsible employee of the defendant.
(7) If the supervising solicitor is satisfied that full compliance
with sub-para (5) or (6) above is impracticable, he may permit the
search to proceed and items to be removed without compliance with the
impracticable requirements.
Obtaining legal advice and applying to the Court
3. Before permitting entry to the premises by any person other than
the Supervising Officer and the plaintiff's solicitors, the defendant or
other person appearing to be in control of the premises may seek legal
advice, and apply to the Court to vary or discharge this order, provided
he does so at once. While this is being done, he may refuse entry to
the premises by any other person, and may refuse to permit the search to
begin, for a short time (not to exceed two hours, unless the supervising
solicitor agrees to a longer period).
4. (1) The defendant must immediately hand over to the plaintiff's
solicitors any of the listed items which are in his possession or under
his control.
(2) If any of the listed items exists only in computer readable
form, the defendant must immediately give the plaintiff's solicitors
effective access to the computers, with all necessary passwords, to
enable them to be searched, and cause the listed items to be printed
out. A print-out of the items must be given to the plaintiff's
solicitors or displayed on the computer screen so that they can be read
and copied. All reasonable steps shall be taken by the plaintiff to
ensure that no damage is done to any computer or data. The plaintiff
and his representatives may not themselves search the defendant's
computers unless they have sufficient expertise to do so without
damaging the defendant's system.
Disclosure of information by the defendant
5. (1) The defendant must immediately inform the plaintiff's
solicitors: (a) where all the listed items are; and (b) so far as he
is aware: (i) the name and address of everyone who has supplied him, or
offered to supply him, with listed items; (ii) the name and address of
everyone to whom he has supplied, or offered to supply, listed items;
and (iii) full details of the dates and quantities of every such supply
and offer.
(2) Within ... days after being served with this order the
defendant must prepare and swear an affidavit confirming the above
information.
Prohibited acts
6. (1) Except for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, the
defendant must not directly or indirectly inform anyone of these
proceedings or of the contents of this order, or warn anyone that
proceedings have been or may be brought against him by the plaintiff
until [...].
(2) [Insert any negative injunctions.]
EFFECT OF THIS ORDER
1) A defendant who is an individual who is ordered not to do something
must not do it himself or in any other way. He must not do it through
others acting on his behalf or on his instructions or with his
encouragement.
2) A defendant which is a corporation and which is ordered not to do
something must not do it itself or by its directors officers employees
or agents or in any other way.
UNDERTAKINGS
The plaintiff, the plaintiff's solicitors and the supervising solicitor
gave to the Court the undertakings contained in Schs 3, 4 and 5
respectively to this order.
DURATION OF THIS ORDER
Paragraph 6(2) of this order will remain in force up to and including [
: :19 ] (which is 'the return date') unless before then it is varied
or discharged by a further order of the Court. The application in which
this order is made shall come back to the Court for further hearing on
the return date.
VARIATION OR DISCHARGE OF THIS ORDER
The defendant (or anyone notified of this order) may apply to the Court
at any time to vary or discharge this order (or so much of it as affects
that person), but anyone wishing to do so must first inform the
plaintiff's solicitors.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF'S SOLICITORS
The plaintiff's solicitors are: [Name, address and telephone numbers
both in and out of office hours.]
[INTERPRETATION OF THIS ORDER
1) In this order 'he' 'him' or 'his' include 'she' or 'her' and 'it'
or 'its'.
2) Where there are two or more defendants then (unless the context
indicates differently) (a) references to 'the defendants' mean both or
all of them; (b) an order requiring 'the defendants' to do or not to do
anything requires each defendant to do or not to do it; (c) a
requirement relating to service of this order, or any legal proceedings,
on 'the defendants' means on each of them; and (d) any other
requirement that something shall be done to or in the presence of 'the
defendants' means to or in the presence of one of them.]
SCHEDULE 1
The premises
SCHEDULE 2
The listed items
SCHEDULE 3
Undertakings given by the plaintiff
1) If the Court later finds that this order or carrying it out has
caused loss to the defendant, and decides that the defendant should be
compensated for that loss, the plaintiff will comply with any order the
Court may make.
[2) As soon as practicable to issue a writ of summons [in the form of
the draft writ produced to the Court] [claiming appropriate relief.]]
3) To [swear and file an affidavit] [cause an affidavit to be sworn
and filed] [substantially in the terms of the draft produced to the
Court] [confirming the substance of what was said to the Court by the
plaintiff's counsel/solicitors.]
4) To serve on the defendant at the same time as this order is served
upon him (i) the writ (ii) a notice of motion/summons for ... 19 and
(iii) copies of the affidavits and copiable exhibits containing the
evidence relied on by the plaintiff. [Copies of the confidential
exhibits need not be served, but they must be made available for
inspection by or on behalf of the defendant in the presence of the
plaintiff's solicitors while the order is carried out. Afterwards they
must be provided to a solicitor representing the defendant who gives a
written undertaking not to permit the defendant to see them or copies of
them except in his presence and not to permit the defendant to make or
take away any note or record of the exhibits.]
5) To serve on the defendant a copy of the supervising solicitor's
report on the carrying out of this order as soon as it is received and
to produce a copy of the report to the Court.
6) Not, without the leave of the Court, to use any information or
documents obtained as a result of carrying out this order except for the
purposes of these proceedings or to inform any one else of these
proceedings until after the return date.
SCHEDULE 4
Undertakings given by the plaintiff's solicitors
1) To answer at once to the best of their ability any question whether
a particular item is a listed item.
2) To return the originals of all documents obtained as a result of
this order (except original documents which belong to the plaintiff) as
soon as possible and in any event within two working days of their
removal.
3) While ownership of any item obtained as a result of this order is
in dispute, to deliver the article into the keeping of solicitors acting
for the defendant within two working days from receiving a written
undertaking by them to retain the article in safe keeping and to produce
it to the Court when required.
4) To retain in their own safe keeping all other items obtained as a
result of this order until the Court directs otherwise.
SCHEDULE 5
Undertakings given by the supervising solicitor
1) To offer to explain to the person served with the order its meaning
and effect fairly and in everyday language, and to inform him of his
right to seek legal advice and apply to vary or discharge the order as
mentioned in para 3 of the order.
2) To make and provide to the plaintiff's solicitors a written report
on the carrying out of the order.
SCHEDULE 6
Affidavits
The judge read the following affidavits before making this order:
1) ...
2) ...
---
Martin Kurrein 199 Strand London WC2R 1DR
mkur...@mkurrein.co.uk
http://www.mkurrein.co.uk/
Richard Robinson
>>
> interpretating
Oh, please. Interpretationising, surely ?
--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem
Bill Hay
>If the new owner of the PC puts Linux on it, I can't see what
>is morally wrong here at all. Daft EULAs aside, why shouldn't
>a Windows license be completely transferred from one machine
>to another?
same CPU, same motherboard, same case?
--
TANSTAAFM
Graham Murray
> (4) You are entitled to refuse to permit entry before 9.30 am or after
> 5.30 pm or at all on Saturday and Sunday.
[snip]
> Restrictions on the service and carrying out of para 1 of this order
> 2. Paragraph 1 of this order is subject to the following restrictions.
> (1) This order may only be served between 9.30 am and 5.30 pm on a
> weekday.
Are the same time restrictions applied to searches of private houses?
If all of the occupants of the house work full time, it is quite
likely that the only time there would be anyone at the premises
during these times would be when one of the occupants was ill or
taking leave (but not away from home.)
Mike
writes
> (3) This order must be served by the supervising solicitor, and
>para 1 of the order must be carried out in his presence and under his
>supervision. [At least one of the persons accompanying him as provided
>by para 1 of this order shall be a woman.]
Is there no requirement that any of the persons be a man? (The word
"him" is later defined to include "her")
--
Mike
SteveR
>Gareth Jones <gar...@uberdog.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Here's a dated post regarding the type of Order FAST and BSA use:
>
>From: Martin Kurrein <mkur...@mkurrein.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: England ATTACKS ON REMAILERS
>Date: 1996/05/17
>Message-ID: <vkAuBEAE...@mkurrein.co.uk>
>Newsgroups: uk.legal
>
>You have to be a bit careful on this.
>
>The English Civil Courts will grant an Order to allow a person to enter
>your home/office etc. in order to search for and/or remove items
[...]
>Failure to obey the Order is a contempt of Court - punishable (in
>appropriate cases) with imprisonment.
>
>For those particularly interested the following is the "pro forma" of
>such Orders.
>
>
>
>IMPORTANT:
>NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT
>(1) This order orders you to allow the persons mentioned below to enter
[snip]
>As a result of the application IT IS ORDERED by Mr Justice [...] that:
>
>Entry and search of premises and vehicles on the premises
>1. (1) The defendant must allowed Mr/Mrs/Miss ...: ('the supervising
>solicitor'), together with Mr ... a solicitor of the Supreme Court, and
>a partner in the firm of the plaintiff's solicitors ... and up to ...
>other persons being [their capacity] accompanying them, to enter the
>premises mentioned in Sch 1 to this order and any vehicles on the
>premises so that they can search for, inspect, photograph or photocopy,
"... and any vehicles on the premises ...": does that mean that they can
serve this on my employer and gain access to *my* car (my own car, not a
company car) parked in front of the building? If so, does it entitle
them to break into my *locked* car while I am, for example, at lunch at
the restaurant/pub/whatever down the road? (Or, as happened to me once,
sent away on a customer site visit in another country...)
--
SteveR
http://www.geocities.com/ug97057/index.html
Not my page, but a good one:
http://www.koolpages.com/thegreatlvc/
SteveR
It seems that you are two components ahead of me, then. I've still got
the original keyboard and floppy drive of my 1997 PC, but I've replaced:
Motherboards: 2
CPUs: 3
Graphics cards: 2
Monitors: 1
RAM: 32M->64M->replaced with 128M->320M->replaced with 512M
Hard disks: 3
CD-ROM drives: 2
DVD-ROM drives: 1
PSUs: 2
Cases: 1
FDD cables: 2
HDD/CD cables: lots.
Sound cards: 1
Modems: 0->added 1->replaced it
Tape drives: 0 -> added 1 -> replaced it -> removed it
Oh, sorry, I think the silly little grey cable from the sound card to
the silver biscuit drive is still the original, although I've got so
many of the damned things that it's hard to be sure.
Anyway, who cares about all those parts? It's *still* the same
computer, just like Grandad's axe with its two new heads and three new
handles... =8^)
Semi-serious question: How do these damned licenses handle hard disks in
removable trays? In theory, if not in practice, I could put my main
boot drive (in its tray) into the tray-holder in my other half's
machine. Would that be legal under the terms of one of dear Bill's
licenses?
007***
>> Tony Houghton wrote:
> --
> STOP PRESS: Open Office 1.0 released today - download it now, for free!
>
> OpenOffice.org 1.0 is a full-featured office productivity suite that
> provides a near drop-in replacement for Microsoft Office. Users report
> that little or no training is required for people migrating from other
> office suites - everything works the way people expect.
>
> The _free_ office productivity software suite features key desktop
> applications - including word processor, spreadsheet, presentation and
> drawing programs - in more than 25 languages. In addition,
> OpenOffice.org 1.0 works transparently with a variety of file formats,
> enabling users to exchange documents freely with users of with other
> office suites, such as Microsoft Office and StarOffice [tm] 6.0
> software. OpenOffice.org 1.0 software runs stably and natively on
> multiple platforms, including Linux, PPC Linux, Solaris [tm], Windows
> and many other flavors of nix.This makes it an ideal first step in a
> migration strategy towards completely open-source computing.
>
> http://www.openoffice.org
Does it check spelling like MS Office?
Ian.
Richard Corfield
> other persons being [their capacity] accompanying them, to enter the
> premises mentioned in Sch 1 to this order and any vehicles on the
> premises so that they can search for, inspect, photograph or photocopy,
> and deliver into the safekeeping of the plaintiff's solicitors all the
> documents and articles which are listed in Sch 2 to this order ('the
> listed items') or which Mr ... believes to be listed items.
Excuse me officer whilst I place this hard drive on the photocopier :-).
There seems to be some reasonable attempt to protect both sides:
> (5) No item may be removed from the premises until a list of the
> items to be removed has been prepared, and a copy of the list has been
> supplied to the person served with the order, and he has been given a
> reasonable opportunity to check the list.
> (6) The premises must not be searched, and items must not be
> removed from them, except in the presence of the defendant or a person
> appearing to be a responsible employee of the defendant.
at least until you get to 7, which I can't imagine being likely for
computers.
> (7) If the supervising solicitor is satisfied that full compliance
> with sub-para (5) or (6) above is impracticable, he may permit the
> search to proceed and items to be removed without compliance with the
> impracticable requirements.
- Richard
--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/ Replace dot with . and at with @ for email
_/_/ _/ _/ StgIV Relapse :-( TIP Wk -1: HCG>5000 AFP,LDH OK
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Preliminary test results: GFR OK, awaiting head
Lyn David Thomas
<news...@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
>In uk.comp.os.linux, "spamtrap" <voi...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> If a PC shipped with Windows preinstalled, can you remove the OS and
>> install Linux instead? Well, no, according to Microsoft. A [7]somewhat
>> obscure Microsoft site aimed at helping schools deal with donated
>> computers flatly states: "It is a legal requirement that pre-installed
>> operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine."
>
>I would think that any company donating a PC *should* wipe the hard
>disk. Not could there be company confidential information on it, but
>it could be a breach of the DPA if any personal data is still
>accessible.
In my experience it is rare for a company to wipe a hard drive before
donating equipment, though that is what we promise them we do, after
running appropriate diagnostics and anti-virus software on them. Thus
confidentiality is preserved and the machines are then clean for
installing an OS.
--
\/ Lyn David Thomas
Webpages start at:
http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk
John Ineson
[...]
> with Windows preinstalled on it you could return the disks for a £50? refund
> on the basis you were going to install Linux (or some other platform).
Not an amnesty -- IIRC you can always do this, it is guaranteed by the
licence?
[...]
> MS wanted to stop supplying Windows CDs to reduce piracy - you got just a
> "recovery" disk that wouldn't work without the information in a "protected"
> section of the PC (no idea how this worked. A special key in the bootsector
> perhaps?).
More likely checking the system contains the right bits of hardware, and
failing if it notices any disparity with the system's original config.
Quite a few OEM boxes come with recovery CDs that work like this (HP
Pavillions, to name one). If you've removed or installed any hardware,
then the software may refuse to install (I say 'may' -- I suspect
non-PnP hardware would go unnoticed, for example).
--
John Ineson |Get fit with the Steve Ballmer Sanitarium Plan!
`-----------------------------------------------
http://www.stenstad.net/storage/developers.mpg
http://www.globnix.org/ballmer/dancemonkeyboy.mpeg
Neil Sluman
> "Dave B" <nos...@nospam.com> writes:
>
>
>>
>>The Register is a very good site, but its been guilty of Windows bashing on
>>more than one occasion and here its not only quoting out of context, its
>>delibrately misinterpreting the text.
>>
>
>
> I had a read of the text and came to a very similar conclusion to the Register.
> What exactly in the text do you think they are misrepresnting or
> misinterpreting. I'd also like to know what you mean by the phrase "been guilty
> of Windows bashing". Have they been printing things that are untrue ?
>
No. Just printing things with a biased spin. They are putting out that
Microsft is evil, rather than Microsoft oversimplifies explanation.
If it was a comapny they liked, they wouldn't have bothered running the
story, and just ignored it.
>
> Hang on a minute, I though that when I pay Microsoft for a copy of windows
> then the licence belongs to me. Whether I buy that licence direct from
> Microsoft, from a shop, or pay someone like PC world to install it for me on a
> PC that I'm buying from them.
>
All this depends on whether an EULA is legally binding.
Bob Billing (AKA Uncle Bob)
> All this depends on whether an EULA is legally binding.
As you can't read the EULA until after you've opened the package the
Sale of Goods Act may have something to say on this point.
IANAL (BMWBI) but IMHO it's very diffcult to make a contract stick if
one of the parties had no opportunity to read it before handing over the
cash.
--
I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/
"It burned me from within. It quickened; I was with book as a woman
is with child." CS Lewis - Till we have faces, Ch 21.
Graham Murray
> As you can't read the EULA until after you've opened the package the
> Sale of Goods Act may have something to say on this point.
>
> IANAL (BMWBI) but IMHO it's very diffcult to make a contract stick if
> one of the parties had no opportunity to read it before handing over the
> cash.
Also when you purchase the computer the contract is between you and
the retailer. So would an EULA purporting to be a contract between
you and Microsoft be valid anyway?
John Winters
Lyn David Thomas <l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>In my experience it is rare for a company to wipe a hard drive before
>donating equipment, though that is what we promise them we do, after
>running appropriate diagnostics and anti-virus software on them.
Why run anti-virus stuff against a system if you're about to wipe it?
John
--
John Winters. Wallingford, Oxon, England.
The Linux Emporium - the source for Linux CDs in the UK
See http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/
Alex Monro
> Neil Sluman wrote:
>
>> All this depends on whether an EULA is legally binding.
>
> As you can't read the EULA until after you've opened the package the
> Sale of Goods Act may have something to say on this point.
>
> IANAL (BMWBI) but IMHO it's very diffcult to make a contract stick if
> one of the parties had no opportunity to read it before handing over
> the cash.
>
IalsoANAL but I think the unfair contract terms act might also have
something to say.
--
Alex Monro, Exeter, UK The difference between Politicians
alexm at pobox dot com and Journalists is that Politicians
Running on GNU/Linux (SuSE 7.3) usually know when they're lying.
Anthony W. Youngman
<nos...@nospam.com> writes
>[SNIP]
>> If a PC shipped with Windows preinstalled, can you remove the OS and
>> install Linux instead? Well, no, according to Microsoft. A [7]somewhat
>> obscure Microsoft site aimed at helping schools deal with donated
>> computers flatly states: "It is a legal requirement that pre-installed
>> operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine."
>>
>> effectively treating the hardware and the software as a single,
>> integrated package that you're not allowed to break up.
>
>The Register is a very good site, but its been guilty of Windows bashing on
>more than one occasion and here its not only quoting out of context, its
>delibrately misinterpreting the text.
>
>not, as the Register is trying to persuade you, that a machine is licenced
>to Windows. Thus if you give the machine away, you MUST give the Windows
>pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the
>machine."
But this is exactly what the Register *IS* saying - that you MUST give
windows away as well,
AND IF YOU CAN'T INCLUDE WINDOWS WITH THE MACHINE, THEN YOU CAN'T GIVE
THE MACHINE AWAY !!!
>
>In the past, companies have tried to donate the PC while retaining the
>Windows licence for themselves - thus avoiding paying MS for a new copy of
>Windows to go with the new PC. This, rightly or wrongly, is what MS is
>trying to crack down on.
>
If this is what they're trying to crack down on, why did they spend so
much effort a year or two ago trying to persuade us that licences were
NOT transferable, and force people receiving old hardware (including
windows) to buy new licences.
PC recycling charities have to pay a "per cpu" "Microsoft tax" if they
don't want MS suing them for breach of copyright ...
Basically, at the moment it suits MS to claim that you MUST transfer
windows. Yet a year or so ago they were claiming that you CAN'T transfer
Windows. They want to have their cake and eat it too :-(
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett
Anthony W. Youngman
<gar...@uberdog.net> writes
Grants the right of surprise entry to prevent the destruction of
evidence.
Jeremy Barker
> In article <s2k0duc1885d1kqj5...@4ax.com>, Gareth Jones
> <gar...@uberdog.net> writes
> >pbres...@yahoo.com (Paddy Bresnahan) wrote:
> >
> >>(For those who haven't encounted them yet, FAST are the Micro$oft sockpuppets
> >>who falsely claim to have a lawful right of entry onto your premises for
> >>software auditing purposes).
> >
> >They don't have a right to enter, but they can certainly try to get a
> >warrant to allow them to enter.....I can't remember what the warrant
> >is called....
> >
> Anton Pillar order.
It's important to realise that it is NOT a warrant. It's a perfectly
ordinary order of the civil court. Officially it's called a search
and seizure order these days.
> Grants the right of surprise entry to prevent the destruction of
> evidence.
Not exactly - the entry and search has to be with the cooperation of
the defendant but if the defendant doesn't cooperate they can get it
in the neck for contempt. The surprise element is in getting the
order in the first place and turning up unannounced to serve it on the
defendant and execute it.
jb
Mark Evans
> In article <s2k0duc1885d1kqj5...@4ax.com>, Gareth Jones
> <gar...@uberdog.net> writes
>>pbres...@yahoo.com (Paddy Bresnahan) wrote:
>>
>>>(For those who haven't encounted them yet, FAST are the Micro$oft sockpuppets
>>>who falsely claim to have a lawful right of entry onto your premises for
>>>software auditing purposes).
>>
>>They don't have a right to enter, but they can certainly try to get a
>>warrant to allow them to enter.....I can't remember what the warrant
>>is called....
>>
> Anton Pillar order.
> Grants the right of surprise entry to prevent the destruction of
> evidence.
Maybe someone should take out one against Microsoft.
Especially since they have recently been caught
pirating software.
--
Mark Evans
St. Peter's CofE High School
Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109
Fax: +44 1392 204763
Anthony W. Youngman
<m...@st-peters-high.devon.sch.uk> writes
>>>
>> Anton Pillar order.
>
>> Grants the right of surprise entry to prevent the destruction of
>> evidence.
>
>Maybe someone should take out one against Microsoft.
>Especially since they have recently been caught
>pirating software.
>
based on pirated code, they were convicted of pirating the disk
compression software in DOS (and having practically destroyed they
company they pirated it from, they bought it up for a song to clear up
the case), and I believe there are several more stories like that.
Throw in the legal piracy of DOS itself (bought under almost false
pretenses...), and Internet Explorer (a royalty deal where the royalties
never materialised...)
MS are a pretty immoral bunch.
Cheers,
Wol
Nic Mellor
> [snip]
> >In my experience it is rare for a company to wipe a hard drive before
> >donating equipment, though that is what we promise them we do, after
> >running appropriate diagnostics and anti-virus software on them.
>
> Why run anti-virus stuff against a system if you're about to wipe it?
'cause if the machine has a virus then 'wipeing' the HD may not remove the
virus?
It all depends on how you wipe the HD. I believe only a full format would
render data totally unreadable - anything else would allow data to be
recovered with the correct tools?
--
Regards
Nicholas Mellor
Brunel University, UK
Remove the animal to reply directly.
John Winters
Nic Mellor <nic.mello...@zoom.co.uk> wrote:
>"John Winters" <jo...@linuxemporium.co.uk> wrote
>> [snip]
>> >In my experience it is rare for a company to wipe a hard drive before
>> >donating equipment, though that is what we promise them we do, after
>> >running appropriate diagnostics and anti-virus software on them.
>>
>> Why run anti-virus stuff against a system if you're about to wipe it?
>
>
>'cause if the machine has a virus then 'wipeing' the HD may not remove the
>virus?
>
>It all depends on how you wipe the HD. I believe only a full format would
>render data totally unreadable - anything else would allow data to be
>recovered with the correct tools?
I think you're confusing two different things - Data recovery and virus
eradication. It's true there are various techniques for recovering
"deleted" data from a disc, ranging from simple undelete utilities to
sophisticated analysis of the magnetic domains allowing the recovery
of data which have been overwritten. What's under consideration here
though is the question of removing a virus. A simple wiping of the disc
will achieve that (say by writing a constant pattern of data to the
whole of the disc). Yes, given a simplistic overwrite algorithm then
it's possible that a specialist data recovery organisation could (at
vast expense) "recover" a virus for you but that's nothing you need
to worry about for normal virus eradication.
Wiping the hard disc is a much more certain way of removing any possible
viruses than running a virus scanner on it - hence the query.
Anthony W. Youngman
HA...@zoom.co.uk> writes
>"John Winters" <jo...@linuxemporium.co.uk> wrote
>> [snip]
>> >In my experience it is rare for a company to wipe a hard drive before
>> >donating equipment, though that is what we promise them we do, after
>> >running appropriate diagnostics and anti-virus software on them.
>>
>> Why run anti-virus stuff against a system if you're about to wipe it?
>
>
>'cause if the machine has a virus then 'wipeing' the HD may not remove the
>virus?
>
>It all depends on how you wipe the HD. I believe only a full format would
>render data totally unreadable - anything else would allow data to be
>recovered with the correct tools?
>
Firstly, wiping the disk is guaranteed to remove a virus, formatting
isn't. And secondly, formatting DELETES NOTHING from the hard disk,
except the information needed to access the contents of the hard disk.
To anybody with any low-level knowledge whatsoever (especially a linux
user), retrieving data from a formatted hard disk is trivial. I'm
assuming, since we're talking about viruses, that we are also talking
about FAT32 (I am responding from ucol!).
And seeing as we're also on uk.legal - I offered to wipe some pcs if my
friend's office (he's a solicitor) were disposing of them. Shove a Slack
boot floppy in, boot and "cp /dev/zero /dev/hda". That really WILL
destroy ALL data on the hard disk to the point at which you need serious
forensic kit to recover it. Yes a data recovery firm would find it
trivial, but you are talking thousands of pounds in fees for them to do
it for you - I should know - I've used those sort of services!
That's data wiping, not formatting ...
And if you've got a boot sector virus, formatting goes nowhere near
that, anyway ...
tony.minch
> >It all depends on how you wipe the HD. I believe only a full format
would
> >render data totally unreadable - anything else would allow data to be
> >recovered with the correct tools?
> Seriously wrong on BOTH counts ...
> Firstly, wiping the disk is guaranteed to remove a virus, formatting
> isn't. And secondly, formatting DELETES NOTHING from the hard disk,
> except the information needed to access the contents of the hard disk.
> To anybody with any low-level knowledge whatsoever (especially a linux
> user), retrieving data from a formatted hard disk is trivial. I'm
> assuming, since we're talking about viruses, that we are also talking
> about FAT32 (I am responding from ucol!).
commercial organisation, I format and install Windows9x, I give them to
charities; does this mean there maybe data from the original commercial
organisation sitting on the hard disc which someone at the charity could
accidentally read?
Tim Woodall
If you want a solution - dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda. Now the data is
gone for good [1][2].
If you format[3] and then install an os then to all intents and purposed
all the data is gone. OTOH, if someone knew that the machine happened
to be the MDs PA at some large company then they might just see what
was left.
In any event, a format and reinstall will not enable someone to
"accidently" read data without using special tools.
OTOH, if a disk crashed and someone was trying to recover their data
them might find the old data as well. In addition, if someone ghosts
their drives (or backs them up at a low level - I sometimes do
this) then the old data might also spread!
[1] baring possible efforts by TLA agencies.
[2] Sorry, I don't know how to do this in windows.
[3] I'm not sure whether windows format overwrites the disk. ISTR a
"quick format" option so maybe it does if you don't select this.
mke2fs only overwrites certain blocks.
Regards,
Tim.
--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.
John Winters
Yes.
To guard against casual browsing of the data you need to use a program
which overwrites the *whole* of the disc, then go on to set up partitions
and format them as normal.
To guard against possible recovery (regardless of cost) of the data
the usual procedure is:
1) Overwrite whole of disc.
2) Remove disc from machine.
3) Remove platters from disc.
4) Smash them.
5) Burn them.
6) Bury them in a secure location.
Paul Rudin
JW> 6) Bury them in a secure location.
Surely you mean "6) Shoot them into the sun." :-)
--
I hope something GOOD came in the mail today so I have
a REASON to live!!
John Ineson
> To guard against possible recovery (regardless of cost) of the data
> the usual procedure is:
>
> 1) Overwrite whole of disc.
> 2) Remove disc from machine.
> 3) Remove platters from disc.
> 4) Smash them.
> 5) Burn them.
> 6) Bury them in a secure location.
Seems more laborious than, and still not as secure as:
1) Remove platters
2) Submerge in acid, or whatever chemical agent will completely destroy
them
Or is that harder than it sounds? (It's probably worse for the
environment too, but since when have companies worried about that)
--
John Ineson
``Is LaTeX hard to use? It's easy to use if you're one of the 2% of the
population who thinks logically and can read an instruction manual.'' -- LL
Anthony W. Youngman
jok...@btopenworld.com> writes
by looking up where to find things in its "index". You've completely
blown away the index, but there's nothing to stop somebody reading
through the pages at random to find out what was there. Any small files
they could retrieve in their entirety - large files they'd probably only
find bits. But they might find several bits and piece them together.
And it has been known for Word, for example, to grab bits of stuff left
on the hard disk, and tag it on the end of a document. Anybody who is
curious might find random bits of pre-format data stuffed on the end of
documents created post-format (beyond the logical end-of-file).
So the answer to your question is - yes, PRACTICALLY ALL of the
commercial organisation's data has been left on the disk. It is highly
unlikely to get accessed by accident (and will probably be destroyed
fairly quickly by normal use of the computer!), but somebody with the
knowledge and curiosity *could* access the data, especially if they were
the first person to use the machine after the charity received it.
Cheers,
Wol
Mark Evans
> Yes.
> To guard against casual browsing of the data you need to use a program
> which overwrites the *whole* of the disc, then go on to set up partitions
> and format them as normal.
> To guard against possible recovery (regardless of cost) of the data
> the usual procedure is:
> 1) Overwrite whole of disc.
> 2) Remove disc from machine.
> 3) Remove platters from disc.
> 4) Smash them.
> 5) Burn them.
> 6) Bury them in a secure location.
The last bit seems a bit pointless,
since if you burn the platters
all you should have left is a pile
of aluminium oxide.
John Winters
Mark Evans <m...@st-peters-high.devon.sch.uk> wrote:
>In uk.comp.os.linux John Winters <jo...@linuxemporium.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Yes.
>
>> To guard against casual browsing of the data you need to use a program
>> which overwrites the *whole* of the disc, then go on to set up partitions
>> and format them as normal.
>
>> To guard against possible recovery (regardless of cost) of the data
>> the usual procedure is:
>
>> 1) Overwrite whole of disc.
>> 2) Remove disc from machine.
>> 3) Remove platters from disc.
>> 4) Smash them.
>> 5) Burn them.
>> 6) Bury them in a secure location.
>
>The last bit seems a bit pointless,
>since if you burn the platters
>all you should have left is a pile
>of aluminium oxide.
You'd be amazed how immune to that kind of reasoning military types can be.
Bob Billing (AKA Uncle Bob)
> The last bit seems a bit pointless,
> since if you burn the platters
> all you should have left is a pile
> of aluminium oxide.
I think he's just being careful. You don't want a copy of win95 to
survive. It's like the old joke about being in a lift with Hitler, Bin
Laden and Gates. You've only got two bullets. Who do you shoot?
Gates, twice, to make sure.
Eamon Skelton
> In uk.comp.os.linux John Winters <jo...@linuxemporium.co.uk> wrote:
>> 1) Overwrite whole of disc.
>> 2) Remove disc from machine.
>> 3) Remove platters from disc.
>> 4) Smash them.
>> 5) Burn them.
or put them in an IBM hard-drive.
E.S.
--
Remove 'X' to reply.
http://homepage.eircom.net/~ei9gq
Linux 2.4.18