|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] Interesting thread on SEUL-EDU mailing list...
|
It just seems to me that the lawyers at Microsoft are doing everything
in their power to destroy the popularity of Linux and BSD. Their clever
statements and wording can make some afraid to load Linux. All I was
looking at is the depths that they will go to to destroy the Linux
community. Needless to say we don't even want Windows on our machines
and most hard core Linux users have built their own boxes.
Bill Jonas wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 03:38:44PM -0400, LeRoy Cressy wrote:
> > The clause that has me concerned is, ``It is a legal requirement that
> > pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of
> > the machine.'' This seems to me to indicate that M$ is trying to
> > stipulate that it is illegal to load another OS besides the one that
> > came pre installed. In other words, the part ``remain with the
> > machine'' can mean to be actually installed on the machine.
>
> Basically, the licensing agreement (legality is drawn from this, if you
> presume that EULAs are valid) states that installation of *this copy* of
> Windows is only permitted on the hardware with which it came. So
> installation of *that particular OEM copy* of Windows is "illegal" on
> any other machine. Now, why in the world would anyone use an OS other
> than Windows? You must want to use it after you donate the machine it
> came with. But the licensing agreement says you can't do that.
> Therefore, in order for *this particular copy of Windows to remain
> usable*, its license must be transferred along with the machine.
>
> Very poorly yet very cleverly worded on their part. They basically come
> up with "it's a legal requirement to keep this copy of Windows with this
> machine" from "you may not legally use this copy of Windows on any other
> machine". They give the impression that Windows is the only thing that
> can be legally used.
>
> Note that there's nothing illegal or even questionable (ie, some action
> that is legal but prohibited by the EULA) about the following scenario:
> I go out and buy a Dell (or Gateway, or IBM, or whatever). It comes
> with a copy of Windows. Suppose I even use the copy of Windows, thereby
> signifying my agreement with the EULA. Later that day, I decide to
> install Linux on it and donate it to a school (or give it to a friend,
> or whatever). So I install Linux on it, destroy the Windows
> installation media (if any) that came with it, tear up the Certificate
> of Authenticity, and give away the machine. No harm, no foul; the OEM
> copy of Windows that came with the machine is not being used in any
> other machine, so there's no legal gripe that Microsoft (or anybody
> else) has or can have with me.
>
> --
> Bill Jonas * bill@billjonas.com * http://www.billjonas.com/
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
--
Rev. LeRoy D. Cressy mailto:leroy@lrcressy.com /\_/\
http://lrcressy.com ( o.o )
Phone: 215-535-4037 > ^ <
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|