From: Jonathan Berry (jberry_at_islandnet.com)
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 19:45:19 EDT
So is Microsoft just targeting clone shops? I saw a quote not
so long ago from Microsoft that they would not be prosecuting
home users, but the tone of this letter seemed otherwise. I
should have taken a copy of the letter home with me!
More comments below.
In article <005301c1f2ec$a0afbd40$0841ed89_at_SC020649>, Richard wrote:
>This is not all-that complicated. One does not buy the software, but the
>right to use it. That right is conveyed by the license certificate that
>comes with the software, or, in the case of a factory-installed machine, the
>certificate comes with the machine.
>
>The fact that there is software installed on a machine you buy second-hand
>does not mean that you have the license to use it. You are responsible for
>obtaining the license from the seller, or, alternatively, buying a new
>license, since if you did not receive it with the computer, the license will
>still belong to the original purchaser.
>
[...]
Richard,
So, in your opinion, further action is required on my part in
Example 3, Example 2, and even Example 1 below. Or are you
saying that the machine itself (the 600E) is the license to use
the software that came with it? That would affect a whole lot
of Thinkpad users!
Let's look at Example 1. The 600E was distributed with a Win98
recovery CD-ROM which would restore the factory configuration,
only on a 600E. I bought a used 600E with the same factory
configuration restored. For many models, perhaps even the
600E, I can phone IBM and for a service charge, or perhaps even
for free, get the CD to restore the configuration. But since
I don't have the paper license, I could be in trouble? Even
though a license is known to exist for every 600E ever
produced!
Well, stranger things have been true. So, come July, will
Microsoft be enforcing this, and how ?
>
>On Friday 03 May 2002 05:18 pm, Bruce Markowitz wrote:
>> That's all nonsense.
>> If you bought a MS licensed product, you can use it until the end of time.
>> If there was a time limit on the license, no one could ever buy it.
Bruce,
At the clone shop in question, they probably sell a lot more
CPUs than they sell OSes. I'm guessing that an OS CD was
"shared" on a lot of those machines.
In the examples below, in each case an OS existed for the
machine. It is not a question of time limits, it is a question
of what happens to the license for the OS when the machine is
sold. And, from the more practical view, what is Microsoft
going to do about it? And what are we, as Thinkpad users,
going to do? It's pretty silly buying another license for an
unsupported OS (Win 95) for a machine worth maybe $150 (701C).
On the other hand, it has not YET been demonstrated to me that
other OSes can be installed and used on these machines by us
ordinary folk. The time to think about it is now, not when
they're at the door with axes.
>> On Friday 03 May 2002 03:43 pm, Jonathan Berry wrote:
>>> A month ago I visited a clone shop in Vancouver. I had never
>>> been there before. This is the kind of place where you buy
>>> stuff at rock-bottom prices, cash only, no credit cards.
>>> Service? Well, no.
>>>
>>> Anyway, there was a prominently posted letter from Microsoft
>>> saying that you could buy licenses for software, including
>>> OSes, until, let's say, 1 July 2002, no questions asked, but
>>> that after that date you'd be out of luck. There was a
>>> (perhaps only implied) threat that they'd be coming down hard
>>> after that date.
>>>
>>> I wonder how this could impact Thinkpad users?
>>>
>>> Example 1: You buy a used Thinkpad which was issued by IBM
>>> with a certain release of Windows. The machine comes with the
>>> OS installed, and copies of the original install CDs. No logo,
>>> no license. Maybe one of those "Designed for Microsoft
>>> Windows" stickers on the keyboard This is my situation with my
>>> 600E, Win98. Is my Win98 legal?
>>>
>>> Is Microsoft going to come to the door with axes?
>>> Are they going to find out by spying on your computer via the
>>> Internet?
>>>
>>> Example 2: Just like example 1, except that IBM issued some of
>>> that model with Windows, some without.
>>>
>>> Example 3: 701C. IBM made these computers with Windows 3.1
>>> (and some with OS/2 Warp as well). You buy one that has come
>>> back from lease where the first thing they did was install a
>>> (presumably legal) copy of Win95. It still has the Win95 on
>>> it. Is that legal?
>>>
>>> When I use the word "legal", I'm thinking more about what
>>> differences there might be AFTER this cutoff date from what
>>> happens now. And I'm thinking about the home user, mostly.
>>>
>>> Maybe it's time to dust off DR-DOS and OS/2 Warp. And learn
>>> how to use *nix.
-- cheers Jonathan Berry http://www.islandnet.com/~jberry/ to know more than you want
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:58:49 EST