2002 Windows XP Small Business software

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark Anthony
  • Start date Start date
M

Mark Anthony

I bought a Dell computer bundled with Microsoft XP 2002
for small business. I received the disks with the
computer. Can I load my other computer with XP 2002
software and activate it. Friends informed me I can not
because XP 2002 (Microsoft) does not permit mutiple use.
Please advise. Thank you.

Mark
 
Hello

I don't understand this licensing issue. If bought on machine A, and
machine A say literally blows up, and is totally destroyed and user buys
machine B. why can he not install office on machine B. He paid for it on ONE
machine, not many-I understand that. But why can't that one machine be a
different one. And do not tell me it is cost of OEM software. It was paid
for by the customer, even if at a lower cost than if he went out and bought
a "retail " version. It should be useable on one machine, even if that one
machine is different many times.

If the policy is otherwise, then, IMHO Microsoft is dead wrong, or you are
misinterpreting the policy, I bought a new "white box" computer with a
properly purchased OEM version of Win XP Pro. It is possible that I will
haft to replace a 'bad" motherboard. Do you mean to tell me that I will
haft to buy another copy of XP because the motherboard changed. This was
stated in another post on this forum. I thnk it is incorrect. The issue
in the license is one installation on one machine. As long as that is
adhered to, it should not matter if that one machine changes, as long as the
"old" machine does not contain a copy of that software, or cannot as in the
case of a bad motherboard, or an old machine that is retired and the
software is removed from the old machine.

respectfully,

Richard not MVP but PH.D.
 
Richard said:
Hello

I don't understand this licensing issue. If bought on machine A, and
machine A say literally blows up, and is totally destroyed and user buys
machine B. why can he not install office on machine B. He paid for it on ONE
machine, not many-I understand that. But why can't that one machine be a
different one. And do not tell me it is cost of OEM software. It was paid
for by the customer, even if at a lower cost than if he went out and bought
a "retail " version. It should be useable on one machine, even if that one
machine is different many times.

If the policy is otherwise, then, IMHO Microsoft is dead wrong, or you are
misinterpreting the policy, I bought a new "white box" computer with a
properly purchased OEM version of Win XP Pro. It is possible that I will
haft to replace a 'bad" motherboard. Do you mean to tell me that I will
haft to buy another copy of XP because the motherboard changed. This was
stated in another post on this forum. I thnk it is incorrect. The issue
in the license is one installation on one machine. As long as that is
adhered to, it should not matter if that one machine changes, as long as the
"old" machine does not contain a copy of that software, or cannot as in the
case of a bad motherboard, or an old machine that is retired and the
software is removed from the old machine.

respectfully,

Richard not MVP but PH.D.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, M$ does not mind if you replace the hardware as long as you
only use one PC at a time for that one license.

But there is a support issue: with an OEM license, support is the
responsibility of the hardware vendor (not M$). If the replacement
hardware is from a different vendor, then you are not entitled to
support from anybody.
 
Greetings --

Remember, you have not purchased the software or operating system;
all you have "purchased" is a license (in plain English, the software
manufacturer's permission) to use the software in accordance with the
terms of that license.

OEM versions must be sold with a piece of hardware (normally a
motherboard or hard drive, if not an entire PC, although Microsoft has
greatly relaxed the hardware criteria for WinXP) and are _permanently_
bound to the first PC on which they are installed. An OEM license,
once installed, is not legally transferable to another computer under
any circumstances.

What, precisely, don't you understand? When you purchased the OEM
license, _you_ agreed to be bound by its terms. Are you now saying
that your given word is no good?


Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH
 
No,

What I am saying is that you are wrong, period. And common sense has to
prevail. If the first machine is non existent or the software is removed
permanently then the license allows under a "common sense" interpretation
use on another machine. It makes no-sense to pay for the same software
twice, period. Use your brain, instead of being a parrot. If I sound
harsh, I mean to be. All the software I use ( and have used since 1983) is
paid for and/or used under the terms of the license. If I buy Office 2003
and run on my computer and next year junk my old machine, I should be able
to use it on my new machine, along with the OS I paid for, which no longer
exists on the old machine.

Do not accuse people who you do not know of going back on their word. To ask
me or anyone else to pay for software twice is stupid and unnecessary and is
not IMO part of the license agreement and would unlikely not stand up in a
court challenge. And the situation is very unlikely to arise where it would
be tested, so this argument is a bit academic anyway.

I agree that use on a second machine in addition to the first is a clear
violation of the license agreement, if the license agreement limits use to
one machine.

Richard
 
I agree that use on a second machine in addition to the first is a clear
violation of the license agreement, if the license agreement limits use to
one machine.
Click to expand...

I've had some overlap as my old machine still has a copy of my program for a
couple of weeks until I am satisfied everything is working correctly on the new
machine. Again, this is common sense - it's sort of a back-up (allowable), and
it is not permanent.

Some software will allow one user to have the program on many computers - as
long as he is the only user of that software. Others allow multiple users on
the same machine (for instance a server).
 
I am bound by the terms of the OEM EULA. My OEM XP was
bought bound to a piece of hardware. The hardware is a data
cable that is stored with the paperwork and the original XP CDROM.
The final say in the EULA is as follows.

* Installation and Use. Except as otherwise expressly
provided in this EULA, you may install, use, access,
display and run only one (1) copy of the SOFTWARE on
the COMPUTER. The SOFTWARE may not
be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time
on the COMPUTER, unless a higher number is indicated
on the Certificate of Authenticity. You may permit a
maximum of ten (10) ("Connection Maximum") computers
or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect
to the COMPUTER to utilize the services of the SOFTWARE
solely for File and Print services, Internet Information
services, and remote access (including connection sharing
and telephony services). The ten (10) Connection Maximum
includes any indirect connections made through
"multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools
or aggregates connections. Except as otherwise permitted
below, you may not use the Device to use, access, display
or run the SOFTWARE, the SOFTWARE's
User Interface or other executable software residing
on the COMPUTER.

Software as a Component of the Computer - Transfer. THIS
LICENSE MAY NOT BE SHARED,
TRANSFERRED TO OR USED CONCURRENTLY
ON DIFFERENT COMPUTERS. The SOFTWARE
is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single integrated
product and may only be used with the HARDWARE. If the
SOFTWARE is not accompanied by new HARDWARE, you may
not use the SOFTWARE. You may permanently transfer all
of your rights under this EULA only as part of a
permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE, provided
you retain no copies, if you transfer all of the SOFTWARE
(including all component parts, the media and printed
materials, any upgrades, this EULA and the Certificate
of Authenticity), and the recipient agrees to the terms
of this EULA. If the SOFTWARE is an upgrade, any
transfer must also include all prior versions of the
SOFTWARE.

Bruce Chambers wrote:
| Greetings --
|
| Remember, you have not purchased the software or operating system;
| all you have "purchased" is a license (in plain English, the software
| manufacturer's permission) to use the software in accordance with the
| terms of that license.
|
| OEM versions must be sold with a piece of hardware (normally a
| motherboard or hard drive, if not an entire PC, although Microsoft has
| greatly relaxed the hardware criteria for WinXP) and are _permanently_
| bound to the first PC on which they are installed. An OEM license,
| once installed, is not legally transferable to another computer under
| any circumstances.
|
| What, precisely, don't you understand? When you purchased the OEM
| license, _you_ agreed to be bound by its terms. Are you now saying
| that your given word is no good?
|
|
| Bruce Chambers
|
|
| || Richard not MVP but PH.D.
||
||
|| ||| I am presuming you somehow are referring to the Office XP Small
||| Business editon... which is considered OEM and can only be
||| activated on a single PC. Once activated, it cannot be installed on
||| another PC even if uninstalled from the first. It is forever tied
||| to that first PC.
|||
||| Cari
||| www.coribright.com
|||
|||
 
Go back to that Eula and read the part where it says hardware is defined as
the computer if purchased with separate hardware.
This is what locks it to the first PC permanently.

--
Larry Samuels MS-MVP (Windows-Shell/User)
Associate Expert
Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
http://home.earthlink.net/~larrysamuels/WS2003FAQ.htm
Expert Zone -
 
Greetings --

I see you conveniently omitted the part of the EULA that clearly
defines the hardware as the entire computer, once the hardware
component has been installed:

'The term "COMPUTER" as used herein shall mean the HARDWARE, if the
HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the computer
system with which the HARDWARE operates, if the HARDWARE is a computer
system component.'

"...The SOFTWARE is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single integrated
product and may only be used with the HARDWARE. .... You may
permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part
of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE,...."


Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



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

Are we still playing this silly game. Common sense should win on both sides
of this issue, as long as the end user is using the software on one machine,
if that is the intent of the license, and the software was legally
purchased, etc. Grow-up folks. Microsoft is not going to go after or stop a
user from using its software if it is not a clear practical violation of its
agreements, and if MS did it would never live down the adverse publicity.

Richard
 
Greetings --

Frankly, I don't consider adhering to the terms of any contracts
or agreements into which I've freely entered as a "silly game." It's
called integrity. I honor all contracts, agreements and promises I
make; I don't try to find loop holes and semantic dodges to break my
promises.

What Microsoft does or does not do in regard to penalizing
violations of its EULA is irrelevant. What's the point of "doing the
right thing" if you do it only when others are looking or you're apt
to get caught?


Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



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

It not about honoring agreements, promises ,etc. What don't you understand?
It is about paying for the same thing twice, and if the agreement says you
have to its is wrong period and probably unenforceable. This argument is
not about integrity; it is about common sense, or have you not been
following the thread.

So is paying for something twice the right thing, and realizing that the
intent of the licensing is too insure that products are fairly paid for and
not used beyond the intended terms the wrong thing? Either you are missing
the point, or we are not communicating, or you are ...Ok I won't say it.

Regards
 
Richard Marshall said:
Hello

It not about honoring agreements, promises ,etc. What don't you understand?
It is about paying for the same thing twice, and if the agreement says you
have to its is wrong period and probably unenforceable. This argument is
not about integrity; it is about common sense, or have you not been
following the thread.

So is paying for something twice the right thing, and realizing that the
intent of the licensing is too insure that products are fairly paid for and
not used beyond the intended terms the wrong thing? Either you are missing
the point, or we are not communicating, or you are ...Ok I won't say it.

Regards
Click to expand...

I think Bruce misread the portion of the EULA that he
quoted: The paragraph he quoted (see way down in this
response) defines the term "computer", not "hardware".
As I see it, from what was quoted here the OP is
correct: the "hardware" in his case is "a computer system
component", i.e., the data cable. Which kind of makes
sense. If he bought it as "OS with cable", he should be
able to sell it the same way. But I scratch my head over
why Microsoft lets it be sold that way in the first place.

-- Bob Day
 
"It not about honoring agreements" it should be, I try to honor the
agreements I make.
If an agreement is unacceptable, then walk away.
It is about honoring your word.
In this case your word is the EULA you agreed to.
If the terms of the EULA are not satisfactory, return the product.
None of us have a right to rewrite our part of an agreement just
because we think "its is wrong period and probably unenforceable"
What we think is not really relevant, what the law says is more
relevant

As has been stated many times and some choose to ignore because they
want the premium product for discount prices:
This is one of the many reasons you pay less for your OEM than I pay
for my retail.

For further clarification beyond your reading the EULA, contact
Microsoft Legal and or your own lawyer.
 
Like it or not, the only way to settle this is for those who
object to the MS EULA to bring a class action lawsuit in US
Federal Court to get a legally binding interpretation. I'm
sure that in 20 or 25 years it will make it all the way to
the Supreme Court and if Congress has not changed the law on
copyrights again, we can all have a "plain English" document
and binding decision.

The only winners will be the lawyers.


message | "It not about honoring agreements" it should be, I try to
honor the
| agreements I make.
| If an agreement is unacceptable, then walk away.
| It is about honoring your word.
| In this case your word is the EULA you agreed to.
| If the terms of the EULA are not satisfactory, return the
product.
| None of us have a right to rewrite our part of an
agreement just
| because we think "its is wrong period and probably
unenforceable"
| What we think is not really relevant, what the law says is
more
| relevant
|
| As has been stated many times and some choose to ignore
because they
| want the premium product for discount prices:
| This is one of the many reasons you pay less for your OEM
than I pay
| for my retail.
|
| For further clarification beyond your reading the EULA,
contact
| Microsoft Legal and or your own lawyer.
|
| --
| Jupiter Jones [MVP]
| An easier way to read newsgroup messages:
|
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/newsgroups/setup.asp
| http://dts-l.org/index.html
|
|
| | > Hello
| >
| > It not about honoring agreements, promises ,etc. What
don't you
| understand?
| > It is about paying for the same thing twice, and if the
agreement
| says you
| > have to its is wrong period and probably unenforceable.
This
| argument is
| > not about integrity; it is about common sense, or have
you not been
| > following the thread.
| >
| > So is paying for something twice the right thing, and
realizing that
| the
| > intent of the licensing is too insure that products are
fairly paid
| for and
| > not used beyond the intended terms the wrong thing?
Either you are
| missing
| > the point, or we are not communicating, or you are
....Ok I won't
| say it.
| >
| > Regards
|
|
 
You just do not ge it....


Jupiter Jones said:
"It not about honoring agreements" it should be, I try to honor the
agreements I make.
If an agreement is unacceptable, then walk away.
It is about honoring your word.
In this case your word is the EULA you agreed to.
If the terms of the EULA are not satisfactory, return the product.
None of us have a right to rewrite our part of an agreement just
because we think "its is wrong period and probably unenforceable"
What we think is not really relevant, what the law says is more
relevant

As has been stated many times and some choose to ignore because they
want the premium product for discount prices:
This is one of the many reasons you pay less for your OEM than I pay
for my retail.

For further clarification beyond your reading the EULA, contact
Microsoft Legal and or your own lawyer.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
An easier way to read newsgroup messages:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/newsgroups/setup.asp
http://dts-l.org/index.html
Click to expand...
 
Did you read the EULA you agreed to?
If yes go on the wording of the EULA.
What you or I think it should be or want it to be is not relevant.
Read the document you agree to.

It is the beginning anarchy when everyone can decide for himself when
to change the terms of an agreement previously agreed to without the
other parties consent.

For further clarification beyond your reading the EULA, contact
Microsoft Legal and or your own lawyer.

Take the suggestion above, I am done with this especially when you
just want it your way irrespective of the law.

Good bye to both of you...
 
Greetings:

Fine, I am tired of people who can not think for themselves. The discussion
here is not about the exact wording of the agreement or about breaking the
law; it is about what is really going on. I do not have a problem and do not
need to worry about this anyway. I am not violating my agreements and I do
not intend to.

I responded initially to a question from someone who asked about using
software on more than one machine. My interpretation is that it is within
the scope and intent of the license agreement in most instances, when the
software is no longer used or cannot be used on the first machine.

My belief is that the intent of such agreement is/and was to prevent folks
from not paying for software that they were using For example using an OS
on several machines, or using office on several machines. These agreements
have changed over time and some allow use on more than one machine,
etc.,etc.

That is why MS went to activation on XP, to lessen the likelihood of users
in effect stealing revenue by in effect not paying for the products on the
other machines. The issue is not about what the prices are for those
products, it is in effect about stealing.

My belief on this is: that if a product is legally purchased and paid for
and the license says one machine that one machine can be any one machine.
You believe apparently that it is only the machine it was purchased with
and/or for. You believe what you believe because you think that is what the
license agreement says.

I believe the opposite because I do no believe that is what the license
agreement actually says. I also believe that if it is indeed interpreted by
lawyers to be tied to that one machine that that WAS NOT and IS NOT the
intent of Microsoft. The intent of the agreement is to limit theft as I
stated above. If is not stealing if a product is paid for and used on one
machine, if that is what the agreement says : one machine.

I have stated my case and will not respond further.

Regards to all who have read this

Richard
 
Back
Top