This is the End . . . .
kurttrail
The System Builders License that comes with XP mentions the motherboard
ONLY once!
4. SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION.
4.1 We grant you a nonexclusive right to distribute an individual
software license only with a fully assembled computer system. A "fully
assembled computer system" means a computer system consisting of at
least a central processing unit, a motherboard, a hard drive, a power
supply, and a case.
http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/public/sblicense/English_SB_License.pdf
Read the System Builder License yourself, and you'll will see that NO
SYSTEM BUILDER, END USER, or FAIRY GOD-MOTHER'S LICENSE SAYS ANYTHING
ABOUT CHANGING THE MOTHERBOARD BEING CONSIDER AS A DIFFERENT COMPUTER!
ANYONE THAT TELLS YOU ANYTHING DIFFERENT IS JUST FULL OF SH*T!
I'm glad I could finally provide ya'll with the definitive answer on
this subject, and we won't need to waste the groups time on this Mobo is
the Computer Nonsense ever again!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity/index.php?showtopic=3
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
kurttrail
> In article <ecvnvhwR...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org says...
>> Of the OEM Motherboard is the Computer BULLSH*T!
>>
>> The System Builders License that comes with XP mentions the
>> motherboard ONLY once!
>>
>> 4. SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION.
>> 4.1 We grant you a nonexclusive right to distribute an individual
>> software license only with a fully assembled computer system. A
>> "fully assembled computer system" means a computer system consisting
>> of at least a central processing unit, a motherboard, a hard drive,
>> a power supply, and a case.
>>
>> http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/public/sblicense/English_SB_License.pdf
>>
>> Read the System Builder License yourself, and you'll will see that NO
>> SYSTEM BUILDER, END USER, or FAIRY GOD-MOTHER'S LICENSE SAYS ANYTHING
>> ABOUT CHANGING THE MOTHERBOARD BEING CONSIDER AS A DIFFERENT
>> COMPUTER!
>>
>> ANYONE THAT TELLS YOU ANYTHING DIFFERENT IS JUST FULL OF SH*T!
>>
>> I'm glad I could finally provide ya'll with the definitive answer on
>> this subject, and we won't need to waste the groups time on this
>> Mobo is the Computer Nonsense ever again!
>
> http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentPage.aspx?pageid=555857
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That takes me to a page that is password protected and the first line
says:
"Sign In to Microsoft Partner Program"
Are you now claiming that all System Builders are MS partners?!
>
> If the pack is opened, the enclosed individual software license(s) for
> application software
>
> * must be distributed with a fully assembled computer system and
> * must now be preinstalled.
>
> OEM system builder software packs are intended for PC and server
> manufacturers or assemblers ONLY. They are not intended for
> distribution to end users. Unless the end user is actually assembling
> his/her own PC, in which case, that end user is considered a system
> builder as well.
>
> Guess it means you have to pre-install it or you're considered a
> System Builder automatically, and agree to abide by the new rules.
>
> Oh, and Kurt, you did know that the rules changed several months ago.
>
> Oh, and you quoted from above " 4.1 We grant you a nonexclusive right
> to distribute an individual software license only with a fully
> assembled computer system. A "fully assembled computer system" means
> a computer system consisting of at least a central processing unit, a
> motherboard, a hard drive, a power supply, and a case."
>
> Notice the part about "Fully Assembled" and all the parts that make
> it a fully assembled computer.
>
> AND FINALLY:
>
> Can I distribute an unopened 1-pack to an end-user?
> OEM system builder software is designed for OEM system builders for
> preinstallation on new PCs. The outside of the pack states ?Intended
> for PC and server manufacturers or assemblers ONLY?. While unopened
> packs can be distributed to other system builders, they are not
> intended for end-users. If an end-user opens the pack, they are bound
> by the break- the-seal agreement which requires them to preinstall
> the product using the OPK, support the product, and other
> requirements not appropriate for an end-user who does not have the
> skills and technical knowledge of a system builder. An exception to
> this is when the end-user is actually assembling their own PC, in
> which case, that end user is considered a system builder as well,
> under the definition in the OEM system builder license agreement.
And again, there is no mention of the MOTHERBOARD IS THE COMPUTER BS in
the System Builders agreement.
Read it for yourself, as my link is not password protected for Microsoft
Partners!
http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/public/sblicense/English_SB_License.pdf
So you wasted your time with your response, because you cannot change
the FACT that non-Microsoft Partner System Builders never agree to the
Motherboard is the Computer nonsense!
kurttrail
> In article <#kK2lywR...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org says...
> Nope, I agree that non-systems builders can get the OEM software by
> means of unethical systems builders. As a system builder you are bound
> to ONLY transfer to another system builder OR to preinstall it on a
> computer.
>
> Read it again dufus, I'm sure you can make sense of the wording if you
> take your foot out of your mouth.
That has NOTHING to do with the Motherboard being the computer,
Lamegirl.
Alias
> In article <uFXVl5xR...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> installing OEM software, not to mention that the computer is NOW
> considered "computer system consisting of at least a central processing
>
> computer is considered to be a group of parts - including the
> motherboard.
>
And where does it say that by changing/updating/replacing a defective
motherboard constitutes a "new computer" or "another computer"?
BTW, as I have stated many times, in Spain, only OEM versions are
available to the general public, aka "end user".
Alias
--
Use the "Reply to Sender" feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza "Responder al Remitente" para enviarme un mail.
kurttrail
> In article <OiUSVx1R...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
> I don't believe I've said it does in this thread, not once, not
> anywhere in it.
>
>> BTW, as I have stated many times, in Spain, only OEM versions are
>> available to the general public, aka "end user".
>
> Yep, I've seen you state it, but I've not seen anything that states
> that those END users are not considered "System Builders" under the
> agreement. So, that makes each END USER as you call them a system
> builder under the new licensing rules - even if your OEM provider
> doesn't tell you.
And yet again you avoid the FACT that even the System Builders License
doesn't say anything about the Motherboard being the computer and
changing the motherboard make it a different computer.
Alias
> In article <OiUSVx1R...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> in it.
Then what's your point?
>
>> BTW, as I have stated many times, in Spain, only OEM versions are
>> available to the general public, aka "end user".
>
> Yep, I've seen you state it, but I've not seen anything that states that
> those END users are not considered "System Builders" under the
> agreement. So, that makes each END USER as you call them a system
> builder under the new licensing rules - even if your OEM provider
> doesn't tell you.
>
Um, the computer stores in Spain, where only OEM versions are available,
are *retail* stores, not "OEM providers" to system builders. *Anyone*
with cash can buy as many as they like without buying *any* hardware.
The EULA, the only thing you receive with it, says *nothing* about a
motherboard. I put one on an old HP and it activated and genuine
advantaged both times.
I am getting set to upgrade a motherboard on one of my computers so it
can handle AGP 8x and I expect no problems because I have not breached
the EULA I agreed to, the *only* thing I agreed to.
Alias
> In article <ux33qa2R...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> months ago. Now a computer is considered as MANY parts grouped with each
> other, not just a motherboard now....
>
> And yet again, you avoid the FACT that a computer is now considered more
> than just a motherboard.
>
Never said it wasn't. One would be hard pressed to do anything if all
one had was a motherboard. What I am saying is that upgrading or
replacing a defective part of a computer, even the motherboard, is
allowed. What isn't allowed is installing XP, retail or OEM, on two
computers simultaneously and, while I have to accept that, I don't like
it. I think that retail or OEM should be allowed on three computers per
family. MS' lame excuse regarding piracy is refuted by the billions and
billions of dollars they made with Win 9x and NT. WPA and WGA will be
the bane to MS because it makes paying customers jump through loops to
prove they aren't thieves. For some reason, that doesn't go over very
well with paying customers who aren't thieves.
Alias
> In article <eupJeh2R...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> Um, the computer stores in Spain, where only OEM versions are available,
>> are *retail* stores, not "OEM providers" to system builders. *Anyone*
>> with cash can buy as many as they like without buying *any* hardware.
>> The EULA, the only thing you receive with it, says *nothing* about a
>> motherboard. I put one on an old HP and it activated and genuine
>> advantaged both times.
>>
>> I am getting set to upgrade a motherboard on one of my computers so it
>> can handle AGP 8x and I expect no problems because I have not breached
>> the EULA I agreed to, the *only* thing I agreed to.
>
> purchased it from had to agree to in order to carry the product - again,
> just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean that they were not
> required to tell you.
>
If you speak Spanish, call either one of these retail computer chains:
http://www.appinformatica.com/
or
http://www.pcbox.com/inicio/default.asp?lan=es&cnt=es
Both carry XP OEM and PC Box carries Office OEM.
Alias
> In article <OfpHyn2R...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> I think that retail or OEM should be allowed on three computers per
>> family. MS' lame excuse regarding piracy is refuted by the billions and
>> billions of dollars they made with Win 9x and NT. WPA and WGA will be
>> the bane to MS because it makes paying customers jump through loops to
>> prove they aren't thieves. For some reason, that doesn't go over very
>> well with paying customers who aren't thieves.
>
> that home users should be permitted more than one install of XP and
> Office on a RETAIL license or an OEM license, as long as it's a HOME
> user and not a HOME BUSINESS.
Why not a home business?
> I do not agree that PA or WGA impacts users or makes them feel like
> thieves.
Didn't say it did. I said MS treats them/us like thieves until we prove
otherwise with PA and WGA. This is an insult.
> Those that feel that way are the same ones that feel the
> Patriot Act is a violation of their rights,
It is. Locking *anyone* up with no legal recourse like the unPatriot Act
allows is not exactly an expression of protecting human rights.
> that tin-foil protects them
> from the government, that aliens run Spain.....
The last two examples are ridiculous and you know it.
nubian
> Of the OEM Motherboard is the Computer BULLSH*T!
>
> The System Builders License that comes with XP mentions the motherboard
> ONLY once!
>
> 4. SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION.
> 4.1 We grant you a nonexclusive right to distribute an individual
> software license only with a fully assembled computer system. A "fully
> assembled computer system" means a computer system consisting of at
> least a central processing unit, a motherboard, a hard drive, a power
> supply, and a case.
>
> http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/public/sblicense/English_SB_License.pdf
>
> Read the System Builder License yourself, and you'll will see that NO
> SYSTEM BUILDER, END USER, or FAIRY GOD-MOTHER'S LICENSE SAYS ANYTHING
> ABOUT CHANGING THE MOTHERBOARD BEING CONSIDER AS A DIFFERENT COMPUTER!
>
> ANYONE THAT TELLS YOU ANYTHING DIFFERENT IS JUST FULL OF SH*T!
>
> I'm glad I could finally provide ya'll with the definitive answer on
> this subject, and we won't need to waste the groups time on this Mobo is
> the Computer Nonsense ever again!
>
Until MS changes the license again.
--
nubian
Alias
> In article <uxuc7H3R...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>> Those that feel that way are the same ones that feel the
>>> Patriot Act is a violation of their rights,
>> It is. Locking *anyone* up with no legal recourse like the unPatriot Act
>> allows is not exactly an expression of protecting human rights.
>
You wrote, and I quote, "Those that feel that way are the same ones that
feel the Patriot Act is a violation of their rights". One violation, Mr
Can't Read, is locking people up with no legal recourse.
>
>>> that tin-foil protects them
>>> from the government, that aliens run Spain.....
>> The last two examples are ridiculous and you know it.
>
> And so are many of yours.
Name one (as if).
jt3
pointing at your suggestion that objecting to the Patriot Act was paranoid.
His objections WRT that are essentially factual--it just comes down to how
much personal liberty you feel necessary.
While I don't feel that WPA or PA in general means that MS is assuming I'm a
thief, I do think that they aren't very concerned about the inconvenience it
may cause, and the general level of aggravation causing users to want to
find alternatives.
Seems to me that as the user learning curve for various flavors of Linux
gets flatter, many will jump the MS user ship, not exactly good long-term
strategy.
Perhaps Alias means that assuming guilt before proof seems too much the same
as WPA.
One could argue, and I'm sure MS has, that practicality (on their part)
argues simplicity.
An alternative would be to accept a looser constraint with the acceptance of
a certain level of illicit usage, without trying to seem the local bully.
Even better, might be, you can only get updates if you pass the test, not
that you can't use the product unless you do.
J
"Leythos" <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:LADRf.25951$UZ5....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> In article <uEC2l44...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
> > Leythos wrote:
> > > In article <uxuc7H3R...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> > > maskedandanonymous.org says...
> > >>> Those that feel that way are the same ones that feel the
> > >>> Patriot Act is a violation of their rights,
> > >> It is. Locking *anyone* up with no legal recourse like the unPatriot
Act
> > >> allows is not exactly an expression of protecting human rights.
> > >
> > > The PA doesn't have anything to do with "locking" up people.
> >
> > You wrote, and I quote, "Those that feel that way are the same ones that
> > feel the Patriot Act is a violation of their rights". One violation, Mr
> > Can't Read, is locking people up with no legal recourse.
>
> Please point to the paragraph/section of the PA that permits locking
> people up without recourse - I can't find such in it.
>
> > >>> that tin-foil protects them
> > >>> from the government, that aliens run Spain.....
> > >> The last two examples are ridiculous and you know it.
> > >
> > > And so are many of yours.
> >
> > Name one (as if).
>
> That people feel like MS is assuming their a thief because they are
> required to activate or use WGA. Only paranoid people seem to feel that.
>
>
> --
>
> spam9...@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
Alias
> In article <uEC2l44...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <uxuc7H3R...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>>> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>>> Those that feel that way are the same ones that feel the
>>>>> Patriot Act is a violation of their rights,
>>>> It is. Locking *anyone* up with no legal recourse like the unPatriot Act
>>>> allows is not exactly an expression of protecting human rights.
>>> The PA doesn't have anything to do with "locking" up people.
>> You wrote, and I quote, "Those that feel that way are the same ones that
>> feel the Patriot Act is a violation of their rights". One violation, Mr
>> Can't Read, is locking people up with no legal recourse.
>
> people up without recourse - I can't find such in it.
And you won't. You claimed that the Patriot Act doesn't violate people's
rights. I pointed out that it does. PA has nothing to do with that,
obviously.
>
>>>>> that tin-foil protects them
>>>>> from the government, that aliens run Spain.....
>>>> The last two examples are ridiculous and you know it.
>>> And so are many of yours.
>> Name one (as if).
>
> That people feel like MS is assuming their a thief because they are
> required to activate or use WGA. Only paranoid people seem to feel that.
>
>
The reason for PA and WGA is what, then?
Alias
> In article <eVCDso8R...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> The reason for PA and WGA is what, then?
>
> away with multiple installs.
As the crackers have proved, it doesn't work and only inconveniences the
paying customer.
> When I asked my dear old mother-in-law if she felt it was or was not MS
> assuming she was a thief for requiring her to activate Windows, she said
> "No, why would anyone think that.....", she also mentioned that many
> other applications require an activation method/key and that she thought
> it was they way of protecting their investment....
From thieves. Do you have a logic problem, Leythos?
Alias
> In article <#hcSRTBS...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <eVCDso8R...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>>> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>> The reason for PA and WGA is what, then?
>>> To try and validate installations such that abusers don't easily get
>>> away with multiple installs.
>> As the crackers have proved, it doesn't work and only inconveniences the
>> paying customer.
>
> few are VL, and I've never felt inconvenienced, not once. Even when
> changing hardware and asked to re-activate, I've not felt
> inconvenienced, and none of the people I personally know that have
> encountered it do either. Not everyone is looking for a problem like you
> and some of the others.
Some people, like you, like to mess with computers and jump through MS'
activation/advantage hoops. Other want to *use* their computer, not jump
through hoops. And, if you ever read MS newsgroups, you would see that
many times these anti piracy programs mess up and cause the end user to
do a tad more than enter a number in a field.
>
>>> When I asked my dear old mother-in-law if she felt it was or was not MS
>>> assuming she was a thief for requiring her to activate Windows, she said
>>> "No, why would anyone think that.....", she also mentioned that many
>>> other applications require an activation method/key and that she thought
>>> it was they way of protecting their investment....
>> From thieves. Do you have a logic problem, Leythos?
>
> Do you have a problem with a vendor trying to protect their investment?
WGA and WPA *doesn't* protect it as the crackers have proved time and
time again. MS made *billions* with "unprotected" programs like
everything before XP so your point is moot.
> I don't and I don't consider my being asked to enter a valid key as MS
> assuming that I'm a thief - we're done, I won't change my position to
> allow your delusions / paranoia to spread to me.
So, if MS isn't protecting their investment from thieves, just who are
they protecting their investment from?
Alias
> In article <#2CHwoCS...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <#hcSRTBS...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>>> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> In article <eVCDso8R...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>>>>> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>>>> The reason for PA and WGA is what, then?
>>>>> To try and validate installations such that abusers don't easily get
>>>>> away with multiple installs.
>>>> As the crackers have proved, it doesn't work and only inconveniences the
>>>> paying customer.
>>> I buy about 500 licenses seats for XP every year, most are OEM, only a
>>> few are VL, and I've never felt inconvenienced, not once. Even when
>>> changing hardware and asked to re-activate, I've not felt
>>> inconvenienced, and none of the people I personally know that have
>>> encountered it do either. Not everyone is looking for a problem like you
>>> and some of the others.
>> Some people, like you, like to mess with computers and jump through MS'
>> activation/advantage hoops. Other want to *use* their computer, not jump
>> through hoops. And, if you ever read MS newsgroups, you would see that
>> many times these anti piracy programs mess up and cause the end user to
>> do a tad more than enter a number in a field.
>
> work with systems and changes all day long, we design networks and
> wipe/reinstall all the time, and PA is not an issue.
LOL! You LIE.
>
> For people that are not technical, that "just want to use their
> computers", they only see PA once, unless they make significant changes
> to their systems or they corrupt the OS through any number of means.
Or if they change too much hardware or uninstall a program or ...
>
> One thing to consider, with the numbers of PA necessary systems in the
> world, it would seem that PA is not really the issue you are making it,
> or people would opt for another OS. I don't think I can recall a single
> person I've talked to (other than in Usenet) that has complained about
> PA, not once.
See here:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate?lnk=srgg&hl=en
Windows Genuine Advantage is causing all kinds of problems for end
users. The fact that you fluff it off as "on usenet" writes volumes
about your supposed "integrity".
>>>>> When I asked my dear old mother-in-law if she felt it was or was not MS
>>>>> assuming she was a thief for requiring her to activate Windows, she said
>>>>> "No, why would anyone think that.....", she also mentioned that many
>>>>> other applications require an activation method/key and that she thought
>>>>> it was they way of protecting their investment....
>>>> From thieves. Do you have a logic problem, Leythos?
>>> Do you have a problem with a vendor trying to protect their investment?
>> WGA and WPA *doesn't* protect it as the crackers have proved time and
>> time again. MS made *billions* with "unprotected" programs like
>> everything before XP so your point is moot.
>
> Sure it works, I've seen business users unable to make 5 installs of XP
> and Office from the same key... I've also seen home users try and pirate
> another copy and be unable to do so... It's the casual pirate they are
> blocking in most cases.
I've seen end users call their favorite cracker and order Office XP and
XP Pro. No, your point is moot.
>>> I don't and I don't consider my being asked to enter a valid key as MS
>>> assuming that I'm a thief - we're done, I won't change my position to
>>> allow your delusions / paranoia to spread to me.
>> So, if MS isn't protecting their investment from thieves, just who are
>> they protecting their investment from?
>
> You misunderstand, they ARE protecting it from thieves, you just don't
> see the real world.
>
First you say they aren't protecting their investment from thieves and
then you say they are. Which is it or are you just making up as you go
along?
Fact: MS made billions on unprotected software.
Fact: WPA and WGA has caused a lot of problems for end users.
Fact: WPA and WGA only show the lack of respect that MS has for its
paying customers.
Alias
> In article <OgxayAD...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>
>>> For people that are not technical, that "just want to use their
>>> computers", they only see PA once, unless they make significant changes
>>> to their systems or they corrupt the OS through any number of means.
>> Or if they change too much hardware or uninstall a program or ...
>>> One thing to consider, with the numbers of PA necessary systems in the
>>> world, it would seem that PA is not really the issue you are making it,
>>> or people would opt for another OS. I don't think I can recall a single
>>> person I've talked to (other than in Usenet) that has complained about
>>> PA, not once.
>> See here:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate?lnk=srgg&hl=en
>>
>> Windows Genuine Advantage is causing all kinds of problems for end
>> users. The fact that you fluff it off as "on usenet" writes volumes
>> about your supposed "integrity".
>
> numbers of systems that use it without any problem. No fluff on my part,
> just a good understanding of the real issue.
>
>>>>>>> When I asked my dear old mother-in-law if she felt it was or was not MS
>>>>>>> assuming she was a thief for requiring her to activate Windows, she said
>>>>>>> "No, why would anyone think that.....", she also mentioned that many
>>>>>>> other applications require an activation method/key and that she thought
>>>>>>> it was they way of protecting their investment....
>>>>>> From thieves. Do you have a logic problem, Leythos?
>>>>> Do you have a problem with a vendor trying to protect their investment?
>>>> WGA and WPA *doesn't* protect it as the crackers have proved time and
>>>> time again. MS made *billions* with "unprotected" programs like
>>>> everything before XP so your point is moot.
>>> Sure it works, I've seen business users unable to make 5 installs of XP
>>> and Office from the same key... I've also seen home users try and pirate
>>> another copy and be unable to do so... It's the casual pirate they are
>>> blocking in most cases.
>> I've seen end users call their favorite cracker and order Office XP and
>> XP Pro. No, your point is moot.
>
> thieves.
>
>>>>> I don't and I don't consider my being asked to enter a valid key as MS
>>>>> assuming that I'm a thief - we're done, I won't change my position to
>>>>> allow your delusions / paranoia to spread to me.
>>>> So, if MS isn't protecting their investment from thieves, just who are
>>>> they protecting their investment from?
>>> You misunderstand, they ARE protecting it from thieves, you just don't
>>> see the real world.
>>>
>> First you say they aren't protecting their investment from thieves and
>> then you say they are. Which is it or are you just making up as you go
>> along?
>
> from thieves - nice diversionary tactic, but it bit you in the butt, not
> me.
>
>> Fact: MS made billions on unprotected software.
>
No need if they can make billions without it and show some respect for
their paying customers.
>> Fact: WPA and WGA has caused a lot of problems for end users.
>
> Fact, they only cause problems for a very small percentage of users and
> under certain circumstances, most users never experience any problems.
Bullshit.
>> Fact: WPA and WGA only show the lack of respect that MS has for its
>> paying customers.
>
> Fact: WPA does protect the product from various types of Piracy, and it
> works well for many types of piracy.
Sure. Read the Spanish newsgroups for cracks that end users use. Lately,
the buzz has been about how to get around the latest WGA.
> Fact: As someone that works with more copies of XP than any home user,
> and more than many self-employeed IT people, I don't feel any lack of
> respect because MS implemented WPA or WGA, in fact, I'm not bothered by
> their methods at all.
Yeah, I know where your head is.
> Fact: If you really cared about it you would not use the platform.
>
>
Don't think it's about time that we call Windows a "Mac"?
Frank
Leythos wrote:
> In article <OgxayAD...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> I never lie, I have nothing to gain by telling lies.
>
>>> For people that are not technical, that "just want to use their
>>> computers", they only see PA once, unless they make significant
>>> changes to their systems or they corrupt the OS through any
>>> number of means.
>>
>> Or if they change too much hardware or uninstall a program or ...
>>>
>>> One thing to consider, with the numbers of PA necessary systems
>>> in the world, it would seem that PA is not really the issue you
>>> are making it, or people would opt for another OS. I don't think
>>> I can recall a single person I've talked to (other than in
>>> Usenet) that has complained about PA, not once.
>>
>> See here:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate?lnk=srgg&hl=en
>>
>> Windows Genuine Advantage is causing all kinds of problems for end
>> users. The fact that you fluff it off as "on usenet" writes volumes
>> about your supposed "integrity".
>
> Yep, and that's a very small percentage of people when you count
> all the numbers of systems that use it without any problem. No
> fluff on my part, just a good understanding of the real issue.
>
>>>>>>> When I asked my dear old mother-in-law if she felt it was or
>>>>>>> was not MS assuming she was a thief for requiring her to
>>>>>>> activate Windows, she said "No, why would anyone think
>>>>>>> that.....", she also mentioned that many other applications
>>>>>>> require an activation method/key and that she thought it was
>>>>>>> they way of protecting their investment....
>>>>>> From thieves. Do you have a logic problem, Leythos?
>>>>> Do you have a problem with a vendor trying to protect their
>>>>> investment?
>>>> WGA and WPA *doesn't* protect it as the crackers have proved
>>>> time and time again. MS made *billions* with "unprotected"
>>>> programs like everything before XP so your point is moot.
>>>
>>> Sure it works, I've seen business users unable to make 5 installs
>>> of XP and Office from the same key... I've also seen home users
>>> try and pirate another copy and be unable to do so... It's the
>>> casual pirate they are blocking in most cases.
>>
>> I've seen end users call their favorite cracker and order Office
>> XP and XP Pro. No, your point is moot.
>
> And I've seen many people try, and fail, so the method works for
> many thieves.
>
>>>>> I don't and I don't consider my being asked to enter a valid
>>>>> key as MS assuming that I'm a thief - we're done, I won't
>>>>> change my position to allow your delusions / paranoia to spread
>>>>> to me.
>>>> So, if MS isn't protecting their investment from thieves, just
>>>> who are they protecting their investment from?
>>>
>>> You misunderstand, they ARE protecting it from thieves, you just
>>> don't see the real world.
>>>
>>
>> First you say they aren't protecting their investment from thieves
>> and then you say they are. Which is it or are you just making up
>> as you go along?
>
> I never said that - you said they are not protected their investment
> from thieves - nice diversionary tactic, but it bit you in the
> butt, not me.
>
>> Fact: MS made billions on unprotected software.
>
> Yep, so, doesn't change anything if they want to protect it.
>
>> Fact: WPA and WGA has caused a lot of problems for end users.
>
> Fact, they only cause problems for a very small percentage of users
> and under certain circumstances, most users never experience any
> problems.
>
>> Fact: WPA and WGA only show the lack of respect that MS has for its
>> paying customers.
>
> Fact: WPA does protect the product from various types of Piracy,
> and it works well for many types of piracy.
>
> Fact: As someone that works with more copies of XP than any home
> user, and more than many self-employeed IT people, I don't feel any
> lack of respect because MS implemented WPA or WGA, in fact, I'm not
> bothered by their methods at all.
>
Kerry Brown
troll. Vocal about his opinions, some of which I don't agree with, but not a
troll. This thread has changed my mind. With three posts he has generated
significant traffic and then sat back and watched :-)
Kurt
On topic about your original post. Microsoft is pushing this on system
builders. Irrespective of any published material they have been consistently
telling system builders this at every system builder and partner event for
almost a year now. Even at a SBS 2003 hands on event I attended the MVP
running the event who was not a Microsoft employee took some time to push
this off topic idea on us. I asked him what would happen to a customer who's
motherboard failed out of warranty. He said that the customer would have to
purchase a new license. At this point a Microsoft employee spoke up to
confirm this. Microsoft is pushing this. What will eventually become of it
is anyone's guess.
Kerry
Alias
> In article <uhiMsTDS...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>> Fact: MS made billions on unprotected software.
>>> Yep, so, doesn't change anything if they want to protect it.
>> No need if they can make billions without it and show some respect for
>> their paying customers.
>
I can't help it if you don't have any friends, Leythos.
>
> So, since this is about how YOU feel, you can go right on feeling
> disrespected. The entire group of people I know all over the USA and
> several countries that talk about Microsoft products don't agree with
> your position or feelings.
That doesn't make what I think incorrect.
>
> So, that makes it a personal issue to you.
And many others.
>
> You can't change the fact that MOST people don't feel abused, accused,
> disrespected, etc... Most people don't have problems with Activation or
> WGA.
False. Most people don't even know about it but when they find out, they
are disgusted.
>
> Now, come back with some other rant, but you can't show me where the
> Majority of purchasers feel abused.
>
Why don't you call Windows a Mac and be done with it?
Bob I
RA
> I may have to change my mind about Kurt. I have never thought of him
> as troll. Vocal about his opinions, some of which I don't agree with,
> but not a troll. This thread has changed my mind. With three posts he
> has generated significant traffic and then sat back and watched :-)
It only looks like he is sitting back and watching because anything he
writes is deleted.
Plato
>
> > >> Fact: MS made billions on unprotected software.
> > >
> > > Yep, so, doesn't change anything if they want to protect it.
> >
> > No need if they can make billions without it and show some respect for
> > their paying customers.
>
I dont care who it is. MS or the 14 year old geek trying to "protect"
his work.
The 14 year old and the "multi-national" have the same rights to get
paid for their investments.
spa...@kurtblog.com
<kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>I may have to change my mind about Kurt. I have never thought of him as
>troll. Vocal about his opinions, some of which I don't agree with, but not a
>troll. This thread has changed my mind. With three posts he has generated
>significant traffic and then sat back and watched :-)
ROFL! One thread in thousands changes your mind. I must say I'm a
bit disappointed in you, that you can so blow with the MicroWind. What
RA told you is true.
Reset the group, or create a new instance of the group in your
newsreader, and see for yourself.
>
>Kurt
>
>On topic about your original post. Microsoft is pushing this on system
>builders. Irrespective of any published material they have been consistently
>telling system builders this at every system builder and partner event for
>almost a year now. Even at a SBS 2003 hands on event I attended the MVP
>running the event who was not a Microsoft employee took some time to push
>this off topic idea on us. I asked him what would happen to a customer who's
>motherboard failed out of warranty. He said that the customer would have to
>purchase a new license. At this point a Microsoft employee spoke up to
>confirm this. Microsoft is pushing this. What will eventually become of it
>is anyone's guess.
>
>Kerry
I gave a link to the SBL right from MS's site. It mentions nothing
about this changing the Mobo being a new computer requiring a new
license. MS cannot legally hold anyone to this Mobo nonsense since NO
ONE agreed to it. Not System Builders, not End Users, not ANYONE!
--
Don't Tread On Me
Kurt Kirsch
nubian
<snip>
>
> From thieves. Do you have a logic problem, Leythos?
>
> Alias
>
>
You mean you actually need to ask?!? I thought it was obvious that
logic was one of Leythos' many problems!
--
nubian
Kerry Brown
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:40:07 -0800, "Kerry Brown"
> <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>
>> I may have to change my mind about Kurt. I have never thought of him
>> as troll. Vocal about his opinions, some of which I don't agree
>> with, but not a troll. This thread has changed my mind. With three
>> posts he has generated significant traffic and then sat back and
>> watched :-)
>
> ROFL! One thread in thousands changes your mind. I must say I'm a
> bit disappointed in you, that you can so blow with the MicroWind. What
> RA told you is true.
>
> Reset the group, or create a new instance of the group in your
> newsreader, and see for yourself.
>
I was just trolling myself to get you to respond back. It's apalling what
they are censoring. I have agreed with a few of your past posts being
censored as they attacked people directly. The current censorship has no
basis other than you don't like Microsoft.
>>
>> On topic about your original post. Microsoft is pushing this on
>> system builders. Irrespective of any published material they have
>> been consistently telling system builders this at every system
>> builder and partner event for almost a year now. Even at a SBS 2003
>> hands on event I attended the MVP running the event who was not a
>> Microsoft employee took some time to push this off topic idea on us.
>> I asked him what would happen to a customer who's motherboard failed
>> out of warranty. He said that the customer would have to purchase a
>> new license. At this point a Microsoft employee spoke up to confirm
>> this. Microsoft is pushing this. What will eventually become of it
>> is anyone's guess.
>>
>> Kerry
>
> I gave a link to the SBL right from MS's site. It mentions nothing
> about this changing the Mobo being a new computer requiring a new
> license. MS cannot legally hold anyone to this Mobo nonsense since NO
> ONE agreed to it. Not System Builders, not End Users, not ANYONE!
I never said anything about the legality. Just some info about how Microsoft
is trying to push this. Here is the text from a sticker on a very current
copy OEM XP Home.
"This OEM software may not be delivered unless accompanied by the required
hardware under the Microsoft OEM System Builder License located at
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense/ . End-user support is the
responsibilty of the installer of this software"
The link leads to a site where you can download various language copies of
the oem license including the one you posted. I agree that there is no
public mention anywhere of the tied to a motherboard rule. Microsoft is
making this rule very clear to system builders then dropping the ball with
the end user. So far I have never been refused activation when changing a
motherboard even when I have told them I changed the motherboard. The vast
majority have activated over the Internet.
Kerry
nubian
> I never lie, I have nothing to gain by telling lies.
>
Oh, so it's just your delusions then.
--
nubian
Kurtis Kirsch
> I was just trolling myself to get you to respond back. It's apalling
> what they are censoring. I have agreed with a few of your past
> posts being censored as they attacked people directly. The current
> censorship has no basis other than you don't like Microsoft.
ROFL! Well you trolled me! So much for Leythos' Troll God that he was
trolled himself!
> I never said anything about the legality. Just some info about how
> Microsoft is trying to push this. Here is the text from a sticker on
> a very current copy OEM XP Home.
>
> "This OEM software may not be delivered unless accompanied by
> the required hardware under the Microsoft OEM System Builder
> License located at http://www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense/ .
> End-user support is the responsibilty of the installer of this
> software"
>
> The link leads to a site where you can download various language
> copies of the oem license including the one you posted. I agree
> that there is no public mention anywhere of the tied to a
> motherboard rule. Microsoft is making this rule very clear to
> system builders then dropping the ball with the end user. So far I
> have never been refused activation when changing a motherboard
> even when I have told them I changed the motherboard. The vast
> majority have activated over the Internet.
And that's the difference between businessmen like yourself, and those like
Leythos. You can see reality between the MicroBS, and he uses the MicroBS to
sell licenses.
--
Don't Tread On Me!
Kurt Kirsch
nubian
> In article <uhiMsTDS...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>> Fact: MS made billions on unprotected software.
>>> Yep, so, doesn't change anything if they want to protect it.
>> No need if they can make billions without it and show some respect for
>> their paying customers.
>
>
> disrespected. The entire group of people I know all over the USA and
> several countries that talk about Microsoft products don't agree with
> your position or feelings.
>
>
> disrespected, etc... Most people don't have problems with Activation or
> WGA.
>
> Majority of purchasers feel abused.
>
Well, I am one of the many who agree with Alias. There are more out
there than you think, Leythos.
--
nubian
Winux P
"Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
news:44184622$0$12086$bb4e...@newscene.com...
:
It's a cruel but beautiful world Plato....
I think in all reality MS has alot more rights that a 14 year old.
- Winux P
Frank
them dearly.
Frank
> In article <uhiMsTDS...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>> Fact: MS made billions on unprotected software.
>>>
>>> Yep, so, doesn't change anything if they want to protect it.
>>
>> No need if they can make billions without it and show some respect
>> for their paying customers.
>
Try N High and fivth area. You will get plenty of complaints.
dannysdailys
Of the OEM Motherboard is the Computer BULLSH*T!
>
> The System Builders License that comes with XP mentions the
motherboard
> ONLY once!
>
> 4. SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION.
> 4.1 We grant you a nonexclusive right to distribute an individual
> software license only with a fully assembled computer system. A
"fully
> assembled computer system" means a computer system consisting
of at
> least a central processing unit, a motherboard, a hard drive, a
power
> supply, and a case.
>
>
http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/public/sblicense/English_SB_License.pdf
>
> Read the System Builder License yourself, and you'll will see that
NO
> SYSTEM BUILDER, END USER, or FAIRY GOD-MOTHER'S LICENSE SAYS
ANYTHING
> ABOUT CHANGING THE MOTHERBOARD BEING CONSIDER AS A DIFFERENT
COMPUTER!
>
> ANYONE THAT TELLS YOU ANYTHING DIFFERENT IS JUST FULL OF SH*T!
>
> I'm glad I could finally provide ya'll with the definitive answer on
> this subject, and we won't need to waste the groups time on this
Mobo is
> the Computer Nonsense ever again!
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity/index.php?showtopic=3
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an
Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
I don't understand your problem; I've changed my XP license to two
different mobo's. I never had to call them. I did for a version of
Office however, but only once.
OEM is a whole different ballgame. Yes, it seems OEM's are all about
throw away and that includes your copy of Windows! This is nothing
new...
Kerry Brown
> In article <A0C666F8-D736-4DF0...@microsoft.com>,
> Kurtis...@discussions.microsoft.com says...
>>> "This OEM software may not be delivered unless accompanied by
>>> the required hardware under the Microsoft OEM System Builder
>>> License located at http://www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense/ .
>>> End-user support is the responsibilty of the installer of this
>>> software"
>>>
>>> The link leads to a site where you can download various language
>>> copies of the oem license including the one you posted. I agree
>>> that there is no public mention anywhere of the tied to a
>>> motherboard rule. Microsoft is making this rule very clear to
>>> system builders then dropping the ball with the end user. So far I
>>> have never been refused activation when changing a motherboard
>>> even when I have told them I changed the motherboard. The vast
>>> majority have activated over the Internet.
>>
>> And that's the difference between businessmen like yourself, and
>> those like Leythos. You can see reality between the MicroBS, and he
>> uses the MicroBS to sell licenses.
>
> the mother board since the new licensing rules were presented months
> ago. How many times will I have to state this for you to remember it.
>
> Oh, and to correct someone else - they said that they talked to a MVP
> about what would happen if a motherboard failed and was unable to be
> replaced under warranty - without additional qualifications, nothing,
> it could be replaced without issue. It's when it's replaced without
> fault that caused the problems in the OLD licensing structure.
I was told in no uncertain terms that if a motherboard failed and it was not
under warranty then the end user would need a new license for XP. The
existing license could not be transfered. The only reason I mentioned that
it was an MVP is because it was obvious he had been briefed by Microsoft on
this very topic and was told to say this. A Microsoft employee immediately
confirmed his statement. It is common for Microsoft to bring in MVP's to run
hands on labs. Many MVPs are also Microsoft partners and experts in their
fields. This lab was about SBS 2003 and the new SBS partner certification
and also about using the OPK and Windows PE. It is unusual for them to go
off topic in the middle of a lab to discuss OEM licensing. It was very
obvious the MVP was uncomfortable with this as was the audience. The agenda
was set by Microsoft. The majority of the audience were OEM partners.
Microsoft was obviously making a point.
Kerry
Kurt Kirsch
>In article <uUSqpyKS...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-
>tems.c*a*m says...
>> > Oh, and to correct someone else - they said that they talked to a MVP
>> > about what would happen if a motherboard failed and was unable to be
>> > replaced under warranty - without additional qualifications, nothing,
>> > it could be replaced without issue. It's when it's replaced without
>> > fault that caused the problems in the OLD licensing structure.
>>
>> I was told in no uncertain terms that if a motherboard failed and it was not
>> under warranty then the end user would need a new license for XP. The
>> existing license could not be transfered. The only reason I mentioned that
>> it was an MVP is because it was obvious he had been briefed by Microsoft on
>> this very topic and was told to say this. A Microsoft employee immediately
>> confirmed his statement. It is common for Microsoft to bring in MVP's to run
>> hands on labs. Many MVPs are also Microsoft partners and experts in their
>> fields. This lab was about SBS 2003 and the new SBS partner certification
>> and also about using the OPK and Windows PE. It is unusual for them to go
>> off topic in the middle of a lab to discuss OEM licensing. It was very
>> obvious the MVP was uncomfortable with this as was the audience. The agenda
>> was set by Microsoft. The majority of the audience were OEM partners.
>> Microsoft was obviously making a point.
>
>I've personally spoken with several MS licensing people about this and
>other issues concerning licensing. Under the OEM agreement, the OEM
>decides when a replacement doesn't qualify. The systems builders site
>USE TO SAY, that the board can be replaced for repair without
>invalidating the license, it can not be "replaced as an upgrade" without
>invalidating the license.
>
>The local regional office does not agree with the statements made by the
>individuals you talked with, and neither did the rep they had in from
>Redmond to talk with us about licensing.
>
>Keep in mind, I got 6 different answers from 6 different people until I
>was able to get the regional office to bring in a qualified rep.
And since MS is NOT the final legal arbiter of what ANY of its
licenses means, you still don't know if you have a correct answer.
Just like SCO is not the final legal arbiter of the UNIX license, and
must sue IBM to get a court to agree with them. So must MS do the
same with their licensing CLAIMS!
The ONLY "'qualified rep" would be a judge, especially over the part
of turning a PRIVATE NON-COMMERCIAL INDIVIDUAL INTO A COMMERCIAL
ENTITY THRU A SHRINK-WRAP LICENSE.
--
Don't Tread On Me!
Kurt Kirsch
Kurt Kirsch
>I've personally spoken with several MS licensing people about this and
>other issues concerning licensing. Under the OEM agreement, the OEM
>decides when a replacement doesn't qualify. The systems builders site
>USE TO SAY, that the board can be replaced for repair without
>invalidating the license, it can not be "replaced as an upgrade" without
>invalidating the license.
>
>The local regional office does not agree with the statements made by the
>individuals you talked with, and neither did the rep they had in from
>Redmond to talk with us about licensing.
>
>Keep in mind, I got 6 different answers from 6 different people until I
>was able to get the regional office to bring in a qualified rep.
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/msg/92840bbc2c3fdbb6?hl=en&
--
Don't Tread On Me!
Kurt Kirsch
kurttrail
> So, we're back to the same old mantra - MS presents a License
> Agreement for its product that you choose to use of free will.
It's not a mantra. It is how contract law works. Or do you think
that IBM should do whatever SCO wants, just because SCO claims its in
the UNIX License?
> You
> have a choice to follow the license agreement or not, of your own
> free will.
And you have the legal choice under contract law to ignore any
contract term that you feel is unconscionable, like the term of
turning a private non-commercial individual into a commercial entity
of a System Builder.
> If at some point you are found in violation of the
> agreement, you may suffer for violating it.
True. But under contract law, it would be up to the Licensor to sue
the Licensee, and then prove it to a judge. Something MS has NEVER
done when it comes to private non-commercial usage term in ANY of its
license. Not only has MS never done it, also all of the colluding
members of the BSA have NEVER done it!
> Seems simple, follow licensing agreement and you will not no problems.
According to whose interpretation? Some corporate criminal of a
corporation, or your own?
Personally I trust my own opinion a hell of a lot more than the
patent-thief, and predatory monopolist, Microsoft!
> Decided to violate the agreement and you could end up with all sorts
> of problems.
FUD! I have challenged MS to sue me plenty of times. And I'm still
waiting, but I'm not gonna hold my breath over it. MS is too
chickensh*t to go after any private non-commercial individual. Why?
Because they KNOW that more the likely they'd lose.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity/index.php?showtopic=3
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
--
kurttrail
>In article <v5ri12hh52lg5vli3...@4ax.com>,
>spa...@kurtblog.com says...
>> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/msg/92840bbc2c3fdbb6?hl=en&
>
>I got your post on the Usenet server I use, google was unnecessary.
I'm not just posting for your sake. But MS pulled the google link
too.
Saturn Smith [MSFU]
>In article <mdsi12h7lhnhhg5ul...@4ax.com>,
>donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org says...
>> > Decided to violate the agreement and you could end up with all sorts
>> > of problems.
>>
>> FUD! I have challenged MS to sue me plenty of times. And I'm still
>> waiting, but I'm not gonna hold my breath over it. MS is too
>> chickensh*t to go after any private non-commercial individual. Why?
>> Because they KNOW that more the likely they'd lose.
>
>It still doesn't change the FACT that you don't know how it will come
>out. Since you can't assure anyone that there is a 100% guarantee that
>MS would lose, all you can do it say you FEEL/have an OPINION.
>
>It would be irresponsible for any ethical consultant to put their
>clients in a position like you rant about. So, it would also be
>irresponsible for me to suggest the same to a non-corporate user.
Do you often snip posts up in your reply without showing that you
snipped it up?
Below is the post you replied to in its entirety:
kurttrail
>In article <vgsi12plvp7ub5rhf...@4ax.com>,
>donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>
>> >In article <v5ri12hh52lg5vli3...@4ax.com>,
>> >spa...@kurtblog.com says...
>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/msg/92840bbc2c3fdbb6?hl=en&
>> >
>> >I got your post on the Usenet server I use, google was unnecessary.
>>
>> I'm not just posting for your sake. But MS pulled the google link
>> too.
>
>Are you saying that MS pulled a post that was ON the google servers?
>
>If this is true, then it's time to go after the Usenet Moderator for
>issuing cancel messages to other servers - as nothing you've done, at
>any time, warrants a blanket cancel action on any servers outside of
>MS's own servers.
No, MS pulled the post with the google link from their newsgroup
server.
Mercury Mendez [MSFU]
>In article <pcvi129sg61nq69ia...@4ax.com>,
>smith_...@hotnomail.com says...
>> Do you often snip posts up in your reply without showing that you
>> snipped it up?
>
>Yep, sure do - when it's the same tired old mantra without any
>additional information.
LOL! And you don't think your a troll! That's how they do it. Snip
out what they don't want to reply to!
>
>The part that I snipped doesn't make any difference and was summarized
>as follows:
>
>1) Until tested in court, we don't know if the licensing agreement will
>stand.
>
>2) If the licensing agreement is found to be enforceable and you've
>advised your clients and friends to violate it all these years, then
>you've opened yourself for a lot of legal problems by ignoring the known
>licensing agreement.
>
>3) See #1 and #2 above
>
>4) Nothing Kurt or Alias says in any post will change #1 or #2 above.
>
>What could he have said in the reply that would change the above, what
>difference does anyone's OPINION make to #1 and #2 above?
What you don't understand is that Until #1 happens, all of MS
licensing claims are suspect, especially ones not mentioned in any
licensing agreement at all, and those for private non-commercial use.
Bob I
they've been doing it. Times change and so does technology. I haven't
seen software released on diskettes with holes punched in them recently
either.
Kerry Brown
> In article <uUSqpyKS...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys- tems.c*a*m says...
>>> MVP about what would happen if a motherboard failed and was unable
>>> to be replaced under warranty - without additional qualifications,
>>> nothing, it could be replaced without issue. It's when it's
>>> replaced without fault that caused the problems in the OLD
>>> licensing structure.
>>
>> I was told in no uncertain terms that if a motherboard failed and it
>> was not under warranty then the end user would need a new license
>> for XP. The existing license could not be transfered. The only
>> reason I mentioned that it was an MVP is because it was obvious he
>> had been briefed by Microsoft on this very topic and was told to say
>> this. A Microsoft employee immediately confirmed his statement. It
>> is common for Microsoft to bring in MVP's to run hands on labs. Many
>> MVPs are also Microsoft partners and experts in their fields. This
>> lab was about SBS 2003 and the new SBS partner certification and
>> also about using the OPK and Windows PE. It is unusual for them to
>> go off topic in the middle of a lab to discuss OEM licensing. It was
>> very obvious the MVP was uncomfortable with this as was the
>> audience. The agenda was set by Microsoft. The majority of the
>> audience were OEM partners. Microsoft was obviously making a point.
>
> other issues concerning licensing. Under the OEM agreement, the OEM
> decides when a replacement doesn't qualify. The systems builders site
> USE TO SAY, that the board can be replaced for repair without
> invalidating the license, it can not be "replaced as an upgrade"
> without invalidating the license.
>
> The local regional office does not agree with the statements made by
> the individuals you talked with, and neither did the rep they had in
> from Redmond to talk with us about licensing.
>
> Keep in mind, I got 6 different answers from 6 different people until
> I was able to get the regional office to bring in a qualified rep.
Over the past year at many different MS partner and OEM events that I've
been at this question has come up. Every time MS was consistent in saying
that for OEM software the motherboard defines the computer. Lately they've
made a point of bringing it up at events where it's completely out of
context. At one event last November we were told this by the "license
compliance manager - system builder channel - Microsoft Canada" during a
presentation on OEM licensing. If anyone would know it would be her. I am
not saying I agree with this policy, merely reiterating what Microsoft has
been pounding into OEMs over the past year.
Kerry
Uranus Umbaba
>If you want to consider me a troll for snipping crap that's already been
>posted hundreds of times, already been replied too hundreds of times,
>has not changed, etc... then feel free to consider me a troll, no skin
>off my back.
<snip>
Snipping is not the problem. It is snipping without showing that you
are snipping that makes you a troll. Understand?
No, I suppose you don't.
Uranus Umbaba
<snip>
>And what you don't understand is that if found to be valid, since you
>were informed of the licensing agreement, if you violated it, you are
>liable to all of the people you told to violate it.
It's been thirteen years and still going since MS it has interpreted
its commercial use EULA into private use EULA too, and still they
have yet to sue anyone. If they did try to sue someone, those 13
years are grounds for summary judgment against MS. Due Diligence
requires MS to protect its interpretation of its licensing terms.
>This is exactly the point of the entire argument - if you violate it
>freely, then you MAY end up screwing yourself and your clients/friends.
I don't have clients. I just have me. And I KNOW the risks, and its
about as risky as clipping my fingernails. My friends are smart
enough to make the own determination of the risks.
--
Uranus Umbaba
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Uranus Umbaba [MSFU]
>In article <d91j12t9djvdf8el8...@4ax.com>,
>umbaba...@hotnomail.com says...
>> Snipping is not the problem. It is snipping without showing that you
>> are snipping that makes you a troll. Understand?
>>
>> No, I suppose you don't.
>
>Yes, I understand your opinion, and most times when I snip I do it with
>the [snip], as I've done since the early 80's on Usenet. When I see that
>something like this thread or the PA or the EULA thread, were it's
>always a complete rehash of the same old, it's hardly worth the effort.
>
>Understand?
Yes, when it comes to subjects that you are challenged on, you turn
into a troll.
--
Uranus Umbaba [MSFU]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Kerry Brown
<snipped> LOL
>
> Don't get me wrong, I've had the same thing told to me, and it was
> clearly, under the old SB site info, that the motherboard IS the
> computer defining part. Under the new rules for SB's, it doesn't
> include that in the documents - at least not where I can find it.
I agree the SB license has changed yet again but as little as two weeks ago
I was told by a MS employee at a partner event that the motherboard defined
the computer for OEM purposes. With a company as big as MS it is likely the
left hand doesn't always know what the right is doing. We'll have to wait
and see how the dust settles. Personally I think the whole argument's
irrelevant. As an OEM I suport my customers how I see fit. As I am
responsible for supporting XP if I install the OEM version then I'll do what
I like regarding upgrades and continued support.
Kerry
Gordon
> Oh, and you quoted from above " 4.1 We grant you a nonexclusive right
> to distribute an individual software license only with a fully
> assembled computer system. A "fully assembled computer system" means
> a computer system consisting of at least a central processing unit, a
> motherboard, a hard drive, a power supply, and a case."
>
> Notice the part about "Fully Assembled" and all the parts that make
> it a fully assembled computer.
>
>
But there is STILL NO MENTION of the fact that you CANNOT change the
motherboard susequently, IS THERE?