Vista licensing again
-
Sorry but this just doesn't make sense... how can it be assumed that everybody will "at most" have only two computers within the lifecycle of Vista? That is absurd given you'd have to buy -another- copy of Vista...
I think they are counting on people purchasing new machines with Vista already installed. My grip is that if I own the OS it should move with me to a new machine or if I do not need it, I should be able to sell it to someone else. If they were talking about OEM, I might not feel so bad about it, but when they are saying "retail" versions are under this restriction, that is plain dumb. The management that came up with this should be instantly fired ;)
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Windows Vista - My Journey begins!
-
Sorry but this just doesn't make sense... how can it be assumed that everybody will "at most" have only two computers within the lifecycle of Vista? That is absurd given you'd have to buy -another- copy of Vista...
I bet they assume that once installed, Vista will perform no better than a brick being pushed through molassas in sub-zero temperatures, and the user will upgrade his system once to "realize the full potential of the OS".
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
I just read a thread about Vista licensing and downloaded the respective document from MS Web site. The following statement looks really concerning: 15. Reassign to another device The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. Did I understand it correctly: if my hardware crashes twice or if I upgrade significant parts of my PC twice, I will have to buy a new copy of Windows. I share concerns of others, but I am also puzzled if such statement risks to be recognized as not legal in some countries, because Windows license can now become void simply because of third-party hardware failure. And I really don't understand the practical motivation behind such decision. Microsoft now controls pretty well that the activated copy of Windows is present only once in the net. Why couldn't they just push the rule "one activation - one machine at a time" and restrict number of machine changes within a reasonable period, e.g. one machine change a month?
Вагиф Абилов MCP (Visual C++) Oslo, Norway If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. Jack Handey.
Vagif Abilov wrote:
Did I understand it correctly: if my hardware crashes twice or if I upgrade significant parts of my PC twice, I will have to buy a new copy of Windows.
No. The provision has to do with reassigning the license to an entirely new system. The licensing has not legally changed from XP. In the case you described, you may need to reactivate Vista, but that can be handled easily. I've changed quite a bit of hardware in various systems and never had to reactivate.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
With all the stupidity going on at MS, they sure are making the job that much easier for Apple to gain market share. :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
You do know the Mac OS X license is similar, right? "You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. You may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party"
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
You do know the Mac OS X license is similar, right? "You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. You may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party"
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
You do know the Mac OS X license is similar, right? "You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. You may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party"
That isn't quite the same. That is same as the second segment of the Vista license people have been quoting. This is in relation to the licensee's right to transfer the license to a new licensee (person) provided they do not retain any licensed material and the new licensee agrees to the license. Party in the legal sense refers to the person or entity (such as a corporation which is legally a person) that participates in the legal agreement and not to those that have no personal legal rights such as hardware or androids. I can look up the exact definition of party in a legal dictionary if you want.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
You do know the Mac OS X license is similar, right? "You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. You may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party"
That isn't quite the same. That is same as the second segment of the Vista license people have been quoting. This is in relation to the licensee's right to transfer the license to a new licensee (person) provided they do not retain any licensed material and the new licensee agrees to the license. Party in the legal sense refers to the person or entity (such as a corporation which is legally a person) that participates in the legal agreement and not to those that have no personal legal rights such as hardware or androids. I can look up the exact definition of party in a legal dictionary if you want.
firegryphon wrote:
I can look up the exact definition of party in a legal dictionary if you want.
While at it, look of the definition of the word "similar."
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
You do know the Mac OS X license is similar, right? "You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. You may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party"
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Ah, I just checked my email. :-D Since this was already discussed on the other thread, no need to beating a dead horse here about it.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
firegryphon wrote:
I can look up the exact definition of party in a legal dictionary if you want.
While at it, look of the definition of the word "similar."
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I think you are just trolling. My paraphrased definition of the word "party" in legal terms is relevant to the current topic as you were stating that the portion of the license for OSX was similar to the concept that the Vista license only allows you to transfer to a new "device" once (edited after reading my post and my fresh copy of the license agreement). I don't know the legal definition of "device" as they are using it as this is likely stated in the EULA. Actually the "licensed device" definition is very vague and could mean quite a bit as they stipulate that a hardware partition is considered a seperate device and thus if you installed two copies of Vista on a single machine would require you to have two licenses. Ah, I just got a copy now. The key is that three pieces of software share very similar portions of their licenses, which specifically are XP, Vista and OSX, in regards to renting, leasing, lending, redistributing and sublicensing. They all specifically state that you can NOT do it. The second sentence of the license quote you made is completely dissimilar to the Vista wording. "16. TRANSFER TO A THIRD PARTY. a. Software Other Than Windows Anytime Upgrade. The first user of the software may make a one time transfer of the software, and this agreement, directly to a third party. The first user must uninstall the software before transferring it separately from the device. The first user may not retain any copies. b. Windows Anytime Upgrade Software. You may transfer the software directly to a third party only with the licensed device. You may not keep any copies of the software or any earlier version. c. Other Requirements. Before any permitted transfer, the other party must agree that this agreement applies to the transfer and use of the software. The transfer must include the proof of license." Apple does not specifically limit the parties with which the license can transfer from and to. This license indicates that only the "first user", which might be your nephew who turned on the computer for you as they don't state what this legally means. I suspect that this means that if your son pulls the computer out of the box for you and turns it on, that he has to transfer the license to you through some mystical ceremony. Regardless, this indicates that only your nephew or son or whoever took it out of the box and turned it on for you has the right to reassign the software to another device or transfer it to a third party. As I can not find any indica
-
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I think you are just trolling. My paraphrased definition of the word "party" in legal terms is relevant to the current topic as you were stating that the portion of the license for OSX was similar to the concept that the Vista license only allows you to transfer to a new "device" once (edited after reading my post and my fresh copy of the license agreement). I don't know the legal definition of "device" as they are using it as this is likely stated in the EULA. Actually the "licensed device" definition is very vague and could mean quite a bit as they stipulate that a hardware partition is considered a seperate device and thus if you installed two copies of Vista on a single machine would require you to have two licenses. Ah, I just got a copy now. The key is that three pieces of software share very similar portions of their licenses, which specifically are XP, Vista and OSX, in regards to renting, leasing, lending, redistributing and sublicensing. They all specifically state that you can NOT do it. The second sentence of the license quote you made is completely dissimilar to the Vista wording. "16. TRANSFER TO A THIRD PARTY. a. Software Other Than Windows Anytime Upgrade. The first user of the software may make a one time transfer of the software, and this agreement, directly to a third party. The first user must uninstall the software before transferring it separately from the device. The first user may not retain any copies. b. Windows Anytime Upgrade Software. You may transfer the software directly to a third party only with the licensed device. You may not keep any copies of the software or any earlier version. c. Other Requirements. Before any permitted transfer, the other party must agree that this agreement applies to the transfer and use of the software. The transfer must include the proof of license." Apple does not specifically limit the parties with which the license can transfer from and to. This license indicates that only the "first user", which might be your nephew who turned on the computer for you as they don't state what this legally means. I suspect that this means that if your son pulls the computer out of the box for you and turns it on, that he has to transfer the license to you through some mystical ceremony. Regardless, this indicates that only your nephew or son or whoever took it out of the box and turned it on for you has the right to reassign the software to another device or transfer it to a third party. As I can not find any indica
firegryphon wrote:
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I think you are just trolling.
You are, and your pardoned. From my perspective, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill and refuse to see any other perspective. Incidentally, the word similar is referring to the fact that both Apple and Microsoft are both attempting to legally limit the transferability of their software.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Ah, I just checked my email. :-D Since this was already discussed on the other thread, no need to beating a dead horse here about it.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
no need to beating a dead horse here about it.
The poor horse....
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
