Re: License with Windows XP

From: Ken Blake (kblake_at_this.is.an.invalid.domain)
Date: 01/24/05 

Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:13:34 -0700

In news:uIPT6zjAFHA.1296@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl,
EvolBob <robertwm@orcon.net.nz> typed:

> Thanks for the comments Ken.
> I'm not going to itemize each point and go through them one at
> a time.
> (don't we all just hate that?)
> I also always top post; So give up this complaint before ya
> start.

You may post any way you choose, and I have no intention of
complaining about it. Although I don't believe in top-posting, I
rarely if ever complain about others doing so.

> Your reply was a bit disappointing and predictable, in its
> right wing
> views.

LOL! You don't know me at all. If you did, you would know that I
am anything but right-wing.

> I had hoped for some understanding for those NOT in a
> situation of choice.
> My main point that I failed to convey, was the general
> agreement from
> this NG is that - someone with 2 XP OS on the SAME computer,
> would
> need 2 licenses to legally run them. Poppy-***!

Please reread my message below. As I said there "The question was
about having two computers with Windows XP on both of them." This
thread is *not* about the question of two instances of the same
copy of Windows XP on the same computer, and nowhere did I
address that issue.

As a matter of fact, I've read arguments on both sides of the
"two instances of the same copy of Windows XP on one computer"
question, all from whom I respect. Personally, I find the EULA
confusing on this issue, and I'm not absolutely sure what
Microsoft's official position is, nor do I know how a judge and
jury would rule on this if it ever came to court.

Personally, if I were on a jury that had to rule on this issue, I
think someone would have a hard time convincing me that it was a
license violation to install the same copy twice on a single
computer.

> I had hoped you guys had some guts to say it would be a little
> unreasonable for MS to prosecute, when one can only use one OS
> at the
> time (usually):

Again, I never addressed that question at all. Whether Microsoft
would prosecute in the "one copy of two computers" situation I
was talking about, or the "two instances of the same copy of
Windows XP on one computer" you want to change the conversation
to, I don't know. Besides, I may be wrong, but to the best of my
knowledge, Microsoft has only gone after corporations for piracy,
and has never prosecuted an individual.

> Whether or not this is technically a breach of
> copyright law or not. In what reality do you live in where the
> law is always right all the
> time?

I have never suggested that the law is right all the time. I
don't believe anything close to that. I do, however, believe that
stealing is wrong all the time.

Returning to the topic of this thread, one copy of Windows on
*two* computers, I would love to see Microsoft (and other
software companies) change its licensing rules and make that
legal for home users. It probably wouldn't cost them a gigantic
sum of money, it would give them a great deal of very good
publicity, and it would personally save me money. I think that
the good publicity they would get from making such a change would
probably outweigh any loss of revenue it would cause. If I'm
right, it would be a win-win situation--good for everyone.

But I don't have have Bill Gates's ear and don't get to tell him
what to do. Even though I think they're making a mistake in the
way they license Windows to home users, I respect their right to
make the decision any way they choose to. They get to choose how
they license it; we the users get to choose whether to accept
their products under the terms offered, not to steal it if we
don't like those terms. If we find those terms unacceptable, our
choice is not to buy their products. As I said, there *are* other
choices (Linux, OpenOffice, etc.) 

-- 
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
>
> As a police officer Ken, you would still ticket a speeding 
> motorist,
> hospital bound with a sick child?
> As a lawyer Ken would you defend or prosecute this person?
> As a parent Ken, would you report your son/mother/brother to 
> the
> authorities as the driver?
>
> My advice to all who for what ever reason have 2 OS on their 
> machine,
> don't worry MS will never get you for piracy, as I for one 
> cannot see
> how they are suffering any injury from this agreed flagrant 
> violation
> of the LAW!
> On a humorous side note:
> The NZ government tired to introduce a new Fart Tax law in late 
> 2003
> - they failed.
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=3529313
>
> Lastly, thanks Alias for the only one with enough brains figure 
> out my
> ramblings.
> I can't wait for that program to return - Jennifer Garner is so 
> .... u
> know - GOOD!
>
>
> Regards
> Evolbob
>
> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:%235zMTYMAFHA.2016@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> In news:O%23dMz8LAFHA.2880@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
>> EvolBob <robertwm@orcon.net.nz> typed:
>>
>>> Hi all.
>>> I'm new to this group and after reading the previous 200 
>>> posts you
>>> have already answered several questions. - thanks.
>>> But -
>>>
>>>>You're almost certainly better off just buying a complete 
>>>>second
>>>>copy from a discount source.
>>>
>>> - Why would a home user do this?
>>> He is the only user.  At any one time, only one OS is being 
>>> used by
>>> him, even if both computers are on he can't split into two 
>>> persons.
>>> Like using two pianos, its a stretch :)
>>
>>
>> The question was about having two computers with Windows XP on 
>> both
>> of them. In most cases, people who want to do that either want 
>> to
>> have one on a laptop and one on a desktop, or want to have two
>> computers, one for each of two household members.
>>
>> This particular person said he was the only user, so why he 
>> wants two
>> computers I don't know. But I wasn't trying to second-guess 
>> him. He
>> said he wanted two, and I accepted that. My reply had to do 
>> with
>> what he had to do to have Windows XP on both.
>>
>>
>>> What about multitasking on XPSR2 with a high priced graphic 
>>> card,
>>> the latest software and networking, one could have several 
>>> monitors
>>> accessing different programs on the same computer?
>>> No extra license for that is needed.
>>
>>
>> True, but irrelevant in the context of the question he asked.
>>
>>
>>> I just tried the Open Office suite and for a free software
>>> application - it just blew my socks off!
>>
>>
>> I've never used it myself, but I've heard good other reports 
>> from
>> those who have liked it.
>>
>>
>>> MS has its money grubbing days numbered!
>>
>>
>> Highly unlikely.
>>
>> Personally I prefer WordPerfect, which is also cheaper than 
>> Microsoft
>> Office (but obviously more expensive than the free 
>> OpenOffice).
>>
>>
>>
>>> I don't support piracy, but to do this one needs to have 
>>> deprived MS
>>> from something?
>>> And for most it is copy the OS to the other machine or not: 
>>> Buying
>>> another copy is NOT a viable option.
>>
>>
>> The laws say you need to adhere to the license agreement, If 
>> you
>> don't like that license agreement, don't buy the product. 
>> There
>> *are* other choices, as you yourself point out, talking about
>> OpenOffice.
>>
>>> Selling a computer without an OS is like selling a car 
>>> without
>>> tyres.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what point that statement is supposed to be 
>> making. He's
>> building a computer, not buying one. When you build a computer
>> yourself, it doesn't come with an operating system or with 
>> anything
>> else.
>> And by the way, there's nothing wrong with buying a computer 
>> without
>> an operating system or with buying a car without tires. You 
>> can't
>> use the computer without an operating system or a car without 
>> tires,
>> but that doesn't preclude your buying either that way and 
>> supplying
>> the operating system or tires yourself. For example, someone 
>> who
>> wants to install a free version of Linux would normally prefer 
>> to
>> buy a computer without an operating system. And someone, for
>> example, who owns a tire business might find it cheaper to buy
>> without tires and supply them himself.
>>
>>> Again why would a person like myself (financially 
>>> constipated) go
>>> and spend $200 NZ dollars for another OS, for something I 
>>> already
>>> have?
>>
>>
>> Because the law requires you to adhere to the terms of the 
>> license
>> agreement. Becuase not doing so is stealing. Because it's 
>> immoral.
>> Because it can get you into severe legal difficulties if you 
>> get
>> caught.
>> If you can't afford a loaf of bread, do you steal it? If you 
>> can't
>> afford a car, do you steal one? Why do you think it's OK to 
>> steal
>> software? You say above that you don't support piracy, but 
>> clearly
>> you do.
>>
>>> Why would anyone?
>>> I don't believe anyone does - do you, does M$?
>>
>>
>> I can't speak for anyone but myself. I own three 
>> computers--two
>> desktops (one for me, one for my wife) and a laptop (which we
>> share). The two desktops each have their own copies of Windows 
>> XP
>> which I bought (Professional for me, Home for my wife). The 
>> laptop
>> has a third copy, which came with the computer.
>>
>>
>>> If you say yes you mean computers and the Internet are for 
>>> the rich
>>> only?
>>
>>
>> Not at all. I know many people who are *far* from rich and who 
>> use
>> computers and the internet without stealing anything. These 
>> days it's
>> possible to buy computers very inexpensively. And there's lots 
>> of
>> free software you can run, starting with Linux and OpenOffice.
>>
>> And if you can't afford even that, then there are often public
>> libraries where computers and the internet can be used for 
>> free. Buy
>> and use whatever you can afford.
>>
>>
>>> If I were Bill Gates I'd fix the OS software problems, sell 
>>> the
>>> OS for $20 and maybe $40 for the Office apps, and provide 
>>> free
>>> online help to all new customers till the next new version.
>>
>>
>> That's very noble of you.  It's too bad for all of us that 
>> you're
>> not Bill Gates.
>>
>> What you are missing, of course, that if you were Bill Gates 
>> trying
>> to run a company with such noble aims, instead of making money 
>> for
>> its stockholders, you would likely have gone out of business 
>> long
>> ago.
>> --
>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>> Please reply to the newsgroup
> <snipped>