Re: Windows XP Issue (Activation) III

From: Leythos (void_at_nowhere.lan)
Date: 02/02/05 

Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:03:09 GMT

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:29:55 +0100, Alias wrote:
> I agree with Woody. Kurtis' views are refreshing compared to the "MS said
> it. I believe it and that settles it" toadyism of some of the MVPs.

I've been on Usenet since the early 80's and find that Kurt and the people
like him are what we call Trolls. They have a point, but, once they've
said it they can't stop and they never address the facts part of a issue,
they always divert from the issue when backed into a corner. That's why I
plonked his main posting ID.

The only valid part of anything that he's posted is that Users can install
Win XP more than once and get away with it until MS does something to home
user pirates.

The vendors license is clear, and so is the section of TITLE that he
spouts - one install per license, backup copies are permitted as long as
they are only used for backup of the media, not to be installed at the
same time on any other computer/system.

What his diatribe comes down to is that he doesn't like a vendor forcing
him to have to pay for software beyond the first copy and he will make
sure that everyone knows they can pirate additional copies even if it
violates the license agreement. In reality he's just advocating simple
theft, as use without purchase or approval by the vendor takes money from
the vendor and is theft to most reasonable people in the world.

If you want refreshing, switch to another OS where you are not limited by
a restrictive EULA.

If you read the EULA and even look at Kurts posting of that Title, it's
clear that installing unlicensed copies is a direct violation of the
vendors EULA. I see no difference in his willful disregard violation of a
MS EULA and any other vendors EULA. 

-- 
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Windows XP Issue (Activation) III
    ... > install Win XP more than once and get away with it until MS does ... > The vendors license is clear, and so is the section of TITLE that he ... > If you read the EULA and even look at Kurts posting of that Title, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Windows XP Issue (Activation) III
    ... copyright protection systems like XP's activation feature and the possible ... >> The vendors license is clear, and so is the section of TITLE that he ... > anything one install per license. ... >> If you read the EULA and even look at Kurts posting of that Title, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Windows XP Issue (Activation) III
    ... | The only valid part of anything that he's posted is that Users can install ... | The vendors license is clear, and so is the section of TITLE that he ... | a restrictive EULA. ... As far as Kurtis being a troll, I suspect you say that because he disagrees ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Windows XP Issue (Activation) II
    ... It is theft because he violated the EULA which says in essance that you will ... only install it on 1 computer. ... two things then there would have been no theft, no EULA violation, and no big ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Windows XP Issue (Activation) III
    ... After re-reading this junk (XP EULA and Title 17) I have to admit that you ... Fair enough, but in this business if you don't sell, install and support MS ... >> The vendors license is clear, and so is the section of TITLE that he ... > anything one install per license. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)