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

From: chriske911 (chriske911-spamhater_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/30/04 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:28:07 +0200

Mike Brannigan [MSFT] outputte 't volgende:
> "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.
>

no, for me it remains an interpretation

>> 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.
>

not to sound smart but no, it's just a copy of a one-time installation,
I tend not to loose too much time installing the same thing over an
over again ^^

>> 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.
>
although it's a common rescue action among most proffesionals?
what where they thinking ^^

>> 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.
>

installation of office requires copying a lot of files and registering
a number of libraries and extensions
what about just doing that?

I know this is farfetching but whatif someone does just that?

>> 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.
>

as you know there is the letter and the spirit of the law
and as you can see here, there are many customers who are not happy
with such a tightass point of view
is the customer not always right?
shouldn't it be about time MS loosened it's steadfast attitude?

>> 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.
>
I'll give the EULA a decent lookover again :')
>> 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.
>
not a server (-ice) but an non specific OS,
I've had a memo concerning this option, offcourse it's way down in some
pile of papers somewhere ^^
but really, I did ask this question to the local MS office and got that
answer

>> 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...