Re: hardware hash (coded profile) kept at MS or on PC?

From: Mike Brannigan [MSFT] (mikebran_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 10/30/04 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:35:40 +0100

"chriske911" <chriske911-spamhater@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mn.f4c57d4aa4c3b6b3.19335@yahoo.com...
>
> a very difficult matter and in no means clear as a bell
>

Not really the EULA is clear on this.

> if you multiboot using the same copy of the OS:
>
> you are using 1 license on 1 computer, not on several computers
> you are never using more than 1 instances of the same license at the same
> time
>

But you have done more then one install using that license key (that was not
a reinstall) and thus are in breach of the licensing agreement.

> taken to the extreme it would be illegal to install an inplace copy to the
> rescue of the original installation?
>

Corect it technically is according to the EULA.

> but if you would modify/swap the system's parameters (read: registry dat
> files) you could have one copy of XP but with different settings, that
> would be legal although it has exactly the same behaviour as multibooting?
>

Not the same - it is not booting another installed copy of the OS which
breaches the licensing agreement.

> and what to do with multiple OS's in a multiboot fashion that use the same
> (for example) Office program files residing on an extended partition?
>

Without getting into specifics.
You look at the license agreement for that product and it will tell you if
multiple installations on the same device are allowed.

> there are many good reasons why someone has multiple instances of
> sometimes exactly the same installations (thru imaging) of any windows OS
> and I dare you to come up with one that has the explicit intention of
> breaking the EULA
>

That is not the issue - to do that IS breaking the EULA for whatever reason
they are doing it.

> for my own I cannot agree with the interpretation that is given to the
> EULA concerning multibooting
>

This is not interpretation - it is the letter of the EULA and has been
confirmed by our Legal and Corporate Affairs department when I posed this
very issue to them and the Licensing team.

> but it is known to the corporate world that MS has got a lot of catching
> up to do with it's licensing model :')

Really !? - we have already stated that dual core CPUs will only count as
one CPU for our licensing model - the same cannot be said for Oracle who are
insisting that a dual core CPU is 2 licenses (on their per CPU licensing
models) and they want paying accordingly.

> they already have caved concerning the HT feature of Intel in regards of
> severs but that was to be expected B-)

No "caving" required we have since day one only counted physical CPUs in our
products that can detect the difference (e.g Server 2003)

> also the usual backup policy of a dormant server machine has been
> reluctantly approved
>

Which products? please provide links to our documentation confirming this.
I believe that may have been some exceptions around older version of SQL
serer in Active Passive clustering but please provide your precise data
points.

> in succession the harsh multiboot attitude will probably tone down, or
> will it not?
>

There has been no change in this in all the years we have had Windows
opertaing systems and our end use license agreements.

> grtz 

-- 
Regards,
Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights
Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups
"chriske911" <chriske911-spamhater@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:mn.f4c57d4aa4c3b6b3.19335@yahoo.com...
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] interrumpeerde het poetertje met volgende input:
>> "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message 
>> news:N4-dnSfNL-xjfh_cRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
>>> How many times (or how frequently) does MS
>>> let a user re-install WinXP IN THE SAME MACHINE?
>>>
>>
>> Once and as often as you like
>>
>>> If one wanted to set up and then mulit-boot several
>>> versions of WinXP, each with a different set of
>>> features installed, on several partitions of one or two
>>> hard drives IN THE SAME MACHINE, would Microsoft
>>> object:
>>> 1) to the multiple installs?
>>
>> Yes we do - your end use license agreement (EULA) that you agreed to 
>> abide by when you install the Windows XP OS clearly states that you may 
>> install only one instance of Windows XP to you PC.  If you require a 
>> multi boot configuration you must purchase additional licenses.
>>
>> From the EULA (which you can view at any time  Start ... run ... winver 
>> and click the link)
>>
>> "...
>> 1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights
>>     provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of
>>     this EULA:
>>
>>     * Installation and use.  You may install, use, access,
>>       display and run one copy of the Product on a single
>>       computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
>>       ("Workstation Computer").
>> ..."
>>
>>> 2) to the frequent "re-installs"?
>>
>> Not a problem for your single install, will just need to activate via 
>> telephone if you are doing this really often.
>>
>>> 3) would it even recognize that multiple installs
>>>     were going on in the same hardware?
>>
>> See answer 1.  so this question is not relevant.
>>
>>> 4) would Microsoft care?
>>>
>>
>> Yes we care a lot about volition of our licensing terms you agree to when 
>> you install our products.
>>
>>> I emphasize that these OSes will be used only in
>>> the same machine, and able to be used only one
>>> at a time.
>>>
>>
>> That does not matter - if you require multi boot configurations you are 
>> required to purchase multiple licenses.
>>
>>> *TimDaniels*
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>> --
>> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights
>>
>> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
>> newsgroups
>>
>> "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message 
>> news:N4-dnSfNL-xjfh_cRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
>>> How many times (or how frequently) does MS
>>> let a user re-install WinXP IN THE SAME MACHINE?
>>>
>>> If one wanted to set up and then mulit-boot several
>>> versions of WinXP, each with a different set of
>>> features installed, on several partitions of one or two
>>> hard drives IN THE SAME MACHINE, would Microsoft
>>> object:
>>> 1) to the multiple installs?
>>> 2) to the frequent "re-installs"?
>>> 3) would it even recognize that multiple installs
>>>     were going on in the same hardware?
>>> 4) would Microsoft care?
>>>
>>> I emphasize that these OSes will be used only in
>>> the same machine, and able to be used only one
>>> at a time.
>>>
>>> *TimDaniels*
>
> a very difficult matter and in no means clear as a bell
>
> if you multiboot using the same copy of the OS:
>
> you are using 1 license on 1 computer, not on several computers
> you are never using more than 1 instances of the same license at the same 
> time
>
> taken to the extreme it would be illegal to install an inplace copy to the 
> rescue of the original installation?
>
> but if you would modify/swap the system's parameters (read: registry dat 
> files) you could have one copy of XP but with different settings, that 
> would be legal although it has exactly the same behaviour as multibooting?
>
> and what to do with multiple OS's in a multiboot fashion that use the same 
> (for example) Office program files residing on an extended partition?
>
> there are many good reasons why someone has multiple instances of 
> sometimes exactly the same installations (thru imaging) of any windows OS 
> and I dare you to come up with one that has the explicit intention of 
> breaking the EULA
>
> for my own I cannot agree with the interpretation that is given to the 
> EULA concerning multibooting
>
> but it is known to the corporate world that MS has got a lot of catching 
> up to do with it's licensing model :')
> they already have caved concerning the HT feature of Intel in regards of 
> severs but that was to be expected B-)
> also the usual backup policy of a dormant server machine has been 
> reluctantly approved
>
> in succession the harsh multiboot attitude will probably tone down, or 
> will it not?
>
> grtz
>
>