License question

  • Thread starter Thread starter gls858
  • Start date Start date
Yes. The OEM version of XP is tied to the first computer you installed it
on - the old PC so it has to stay with that PC. The Vista version is not an
OEM so you can install it on other systems providing you first remove it
from any other system it is installed on. You may have to call the
activation center by phone but that is generally an automated process.
 
What a crock of crap Don.

--

Xandros


Don Schmidt said:
This sounds a bit like, "Don't ask; don't tell."

Or, would an individual violate the traffic laws if s/he did 61 in a 60
zone?

How pure do you want to be?

One way to completely be in accordance with the most strict interpretation
of the EULA would be purchase a new computer (you've done that) and use it
for parts. Next replace the parts in the old computer that came with the
OEM disc sub unit by sub unit a day at a time. Over several days you would
have a new computer with the original OEM copy of Windows XP.

My general ethics are, one copy of Windows per computer.

Now I'll retreat to a safe haven and attempt to survive the onslaught of
"shame, shame" messages.
Click to expand...
 
My intent was to share my understanding that any version of the OS (Windows
98, SE, XP etc) either OEM or the version from the Computer store can be
installed on any one computer at a time providing one does it in a
legitimist manner. Similar to the procedure of tax avoidance versus tax
evasion; avoidance is legal, evasion is illegal.

When I purchased a Micron computer some years ago with a Windows 98 CD it
states "For distribution with a new PC only." This to me covers the
distribution of the CD, not which computer it is installed on. The EULA
covers that it can be installed on one computer, but doesn't say which one.
And if one interpreted that it is the computer purchased at the time of the
CD purchase, one is allowed to replace parts on a maintenance schedule if
one so desires. Replace the mouse? The keyboard? Monitor? Power supply?
Graphics board? CPU? And yes, even the motherboard and case, etc.
 
Don said:
My intent was to share my understanding that any version of the OS (Windows
98, SE, XP etc) either OEM or the version from the Computer store can be
installed on any one computer at a time providing one does it in a
legitimist manner. Similar to the procedure of tax avoidance versus tax
evasion; avoidance is legal, evasion is illegal.
Click to expand...


I see. I'm afraid that wasn't at all clear from your wording, and it
was still unnecessary for the OP to "avoid" anything, as what he
intended to do was perfectly within the bounds of the EULA.

When I purchased a Micron computer some years ago with a Windows 98 CD it
states "For distribution with a new PC only." This to me covers the
distribution of the CD, not which computer it is installed on. The EULA
covers that it can be installed on one computer, but doesn't say which one.
Click to expand...


Yes, it did. It specified that the license could only be used on the
machine with which it was purchased.

And if one interpreted that it is the computer purchased at the time of the
CD purchase, one is allowed to replace parts on a maintenance schedule if
one so desires.
Click to expand...


True enough. According to its End User License Agreement (EULA), an
OEM license may not be transferred from one distinct PC to another PC.
Nothing is said about prohibiting one from repairing or upgrading the PC
on which an OEM license is installed.

Replace the mouse? The keyboard? Monitor? Power supply?
Graphics board? CPU? And yes, even the motherboard and case, etc.
Click to expand...


Now we enter a sort of grey area.

Some people mistakenly believe that the motherboard is the key
component that defines the "original computer," but the OEM EULA itself
does not make any such distinction. Others have said (tongue in cheek)
that one could successfully argue that it's the PC's case that is the
deciding component, as that is where one is instructed to affix the OEM
CoA label w/Product Key. Again, the EULA does *not* specifically define
any single component as the computer. Licensed Microsoft Systems
Builders, who are allowed to distribute OEM licenses with computers they
build and sell, are _contractually_ obligated to "define" the computer
as the motherboard, but this limitation/definition can't be applied to
the end user until the EULA is re-written.

Microsoft has, to date, been very careful _not_ to *publicly*
define when an incrementally upgraded computer ceases to be the original
computer. The closest I've ever seen a Microsoft employee come to this
definition (in a public forum) is to tell the person making the inquiry
to consult the PC's manufacturer. As the OEM license's support is
solely the responsibility of said manufacturer, they should determine
what sort of hardware changes to allow before the warranty and support
agreements are voided. To paraphrase: An incrementally upgraded
computer ceases to be the original computer, as pertains to the OEM
EULA, only when the *OEM* says it's a different computer. If you've
built the system yourself, and used a generic OEM CD, then _you_ are the
"OEM," and _you_ get to decide when you'll no longer support your product.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
 
Now we enter a sort of grey area.

Some people mistakenly believe that the motherboard is the key
component that defines the "original computer," but the OEM EULA itself
does not make any such distinction. Others have said (tongue in cheek)
that one could successfully argue that it's the PC's case that is the
deciding component, as that is where one is instructed to affix the OEM
CoA label w/Product Key. Again, the EULA does *not* specifically define
any single component as the computer. Licensed Microsoft Systems
Builders, who are allowed to distribute OEM licenses with computers they
build and sell, are _contractually_ obligated to "define" the computer
as the motherboard, but this limitation/definition can't be applied to
the end user until the EULA is re-written.

Microsoft has, to date, been very careful _not_ to *publicly*
define when an incrementally upgraded computer ceases to be the original
computer. The closest I've ever seen a Microsoft employee come to this
definition (in a public forum) is to tell the person making the inquiry
to consult the PC's manufacturer. As the OEM license's support is
solely the responsibility of said manufacturer, they should determine
what sort of hardware changes to allow before the warranty and support
agreements are voided. To paraphrase: An incrementally upgraded
computer ceases to be the original computer, as pertains to the OEM
EULA, only when the *OEM* says it's a different computer. If you've
built the system yourself, and used a generic OEM CD, then _you_ are the
"OEM," and _you_ get to decide when you'll no longer support your product.
Click to expand...



Bruce, have you seen
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/activationfaq.mspx
or http://tinyurl.com/384gx5

which says,

"If you acquired Windows Vista pre-installed on a computer from a
major manufacturer (sometimes referred to as an Original Equipment
Manufacturer or OEM), Windows Vista will require re-activation if you
replace the motherboard with a motherboard not provided by the OEM."

It's about Vista in particular, not XP, but I assume if they say it
about Vista, the same very likely applies to Windows XP. Since
replacing a motherboard requires reactivation, that implies that
replacing the motherboard and using the same OEM copy of Windows *is*
permitted by the EULA.
 
Bruce, have you seen
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/activationfaq.mspx
or http://tinyurl.com/384gx5

which says,

"If you acquired Windows Vista pre-installed on a computer from a
major manufacturer (sometimes referred to as an Original Equipment
Manufacturer or OEM), Windows Vista will require re-activation if you
replace the motherboard with a motherboard not provided by the OEM."

It's about Vista in particular, not XP, but I assume if they say it
about Vista, the same very likely applies to Windows XP. Since
replacing a motherboard requires reactivation, that implies that
replacing the motherboard and using the same OEM copy of Windows *is*
permitted by the EULA.
Click to expand...


No, I hadn't seen that, yet. Thanks for pointing it out.

It does certainly seem to imply that even motherboard replacements are
OK. (But it conveniently leaves out any mention that the OEM's chosen
recovery method may well not work on a new motherboard, potentially
causing the user to buy a new license, anyway.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
 
No, I hadn't seen that, yet. Thanks for pointing it out.

It does certainly seem to imply that even motherboard replacements are
OK. (But it conveniently leaves out any mention that the OEM's chosen
recovery method may well not work on a new motherboard, potentially
causing the user to buy a new license, anyway.
Click to expand...


That's true. If the OEM copy is BIOS-locked to the original
motherboard, what it says doesn't matter. It can't be done whether the
EULA permits it or not.

But with regard to the licensing question, and the ambiguity of what
constitutes the same computer, it does seem to answer the question
that many of us have been unsure about, at least with regard to
changing the motherboard.
 
Back
Top