On Wed, 1 May 2002 11:58:40 +0200 Thomas Ribbrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quietly intimated:
> On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 12:42:05AM -0400, Michael Fratoni wrote: > [...] > > It is true that if the machine is donated, the person donating it > > can not retain the installation media, and then put what would be an > > illegal copy on their new machine. > [...] > > Now you got me confused (but admittedly, my experience with any MS > Windows install medias/licences more recent than Win 3.1 is severely > limited): > > - If I have a machine with a legal copy of Win XX on it, wipe Win XX > off the > machine, sell/donate the machine and then proceed to install said > legal copy of Win XX on my own, new machine - that's illegal? If so, > then MS is even worse than I thought it is... Under previous licensing, maybe. I don't have one handy and can't say one way or the other. Under current licensing, no. It would be the same as taking the copy you have, wiping the one that it's on and loading it on another machine that you own. The license says you can't have it installed twice. The stickler is OEM versions. M$ is making the (false) claim that it has to stay with the machine it was originally installed on. Instead, the license requires it go with a piece of hardware if transferred. That keeps the OEM status intact. They don't like this, but they can't do anything about it or they would. There are OEM copies sold on EBay all of the time. They come in 2 flavors: successful and unsuccessful. The unsuccessful ones are pulled because someone is selling the OEM copy all alone. M$ trolls the EBay listings constantly and notifies EBay when they find this typ. EBay pulls all of them. The successful ones are including broekn hard drives, mice that don't work, sometimes working items, etc. M$ wants to stop those, too. But the license only requires a piece of hardware to accompany the transfer and EBay ignores anything M$ complains about that meets the licensing criteria. The claim about donated PCs is specious. They know it won't stand. That doesn't stop them from trying to FUD their way into making people conform to what they _want_ people to do instead of what's actually legal. > - If - given the same scenario - I do not wipe Win XX before > selling/donating the machine, wouldn't the copy on the machine be > illegal rather than the installation I made from the legal medias I > kept? The illegality is when two copies are installed from the same media. The illegal machine is the one that doesn't have the accompanying media. If one owner has both machines, the owner is in violation with the second machine that was installed. > %-} > > Anyway, one more reason to stick with Linux, *BSD or maybe Solaris... > > Cheerio, > > Thomas -- Earth first! We'll strip-mine the other planets later. _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
