Its illegal to delete Windoz?

Keeks

See the article from http://www.theregister.co.uk. Whatever next?

Boston

is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine."

Strikes me that what thsi law means is that if you sell a machine you have to sell the pre installed os with it.

I think its a little bite of duity tricks by MS to scare people into not uninstalling os's. If this law was true (in the sense they mean)sure you couldnt upgrade either

Saruman

My GOD!! If windows gets screwed your computer manufacturer tells you to deltree windows and reinstall it!! Anyway Gateway sold systems with no OS!

Keeks

Thats mine interpetation of the End user lience aswell. But I wouldn't put anything past M$.

Its not a law, just the terms of the lience state that you can only use the version of Windows you get with your PC, only on that PCs hardware.

The question is what is the lience agreement that comes with the standalone packages?

Occidental

No quite. What they are trying to stop is the situation where you buy an XP machine, but you format it and load Linux. You then peel the licence sticker off the side of the machine and give it to your mate as a legit XP licence.

It's the transfer of the licence from a preload machine to another PC that Microsoft have a problem with.

EvilGeorge

That rule has been there for years, I remember reading it when I got my first system - but hell people just ignore then anyway.

The other thing is nobody actually owns their own copy of windows, as in the cd and files are not theirs - only the licience agreement.

All the manufacturer has to do is give you an installed copy of windows, the licence and no back up cd - if you have to reinstall tough - and this is ok with their law!

Victor

Originally posted by Occidental
No quite. What they are trying to stop is the situation where you buy an XP machine, but you format it and load Linux. You then peel the licence sticker off the side of the machine and give it to your mate as a legit XP licence. It's the transfer of the licence from a preload machine to another PC that Microsoft have a problem with.

Why? (other than to line their pockets). If that is the case they would surely prefer people not to get their mits on a discounted copy from an OEM.

Hobbes

No it's not a legal requirement unless you actually have the OS on the machine.

For example there is nothing wrong owning a machine with no operating system or linux installed as long as the operating system that came with it isn't being used on another machine (this relates only to OEM machines).

po0k

.....not that it'll stop anyone from installing their copy of win98 onto a shítty old box to play mp3s.......

JustHalf

I'd like to see that one tested in court.

tmcd

Ah Boll*x Now I have to ring the software audit guy again and tell him he told me a pile of rubbish last tuesday.
I Rang on behalf of a client who wants his office machines all in order. Just to find out the nitty gritty stuf.
He told me
If I sold a machine (with lets say win98 which was reg to me)
to a friend I could leave win98 on it but inform MS that I turn rightful owership over to the guy who bought the machine. No Problem. But He also told me That If I wanted to keep owenership of Win98 I could sell the pc and but would have to delete windows off it. (This to me would Sound fairly Normal) Cant understand that Article.
1 interesting thing I did find out was that you cant do the same with the likes of Autocad. If you buy it, You buy it for life. No reselling of autocad allowed.
I still can't believe that, can anyone verify it?

The_Conductor

Hmmm- according to court filings they are also trying to outlaw the sale of clean machines- that is computers without a pre-installed operating system. Apparently a few months back WalMart in the States had a special on PCs without any OS. While they could legitimately claim that they intended people to pop Linux or buy their own Windows or whatever, you know as well as I do that within 48 hours of getting the beasts out of the boxes most of them will have had MS software illictly on them.
It will be interesting to see how the current court case goes.
Might start up a new thread with updates on the MS court cases.

Meh

Originally posted by Hobbes
No it's not a legal requirement unless you actually have the OS on the machine.

For example there is nothing wrong owning a machine with no operating system or linux installed as long as the operating system that came with it isn't being used on another machine (this relates only to OEM machines).

This is correct. The Register have published Microsoft's clarification of the issue:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25196.html

Lemming

What no-one seems to have mentioned here, in relation to clean machines, or changing an O/S is this:

Micro$oft are NOT a hardware manufacturer. So how can they turn around and legally dictate what you can and cannot do with hardware over which they have no input/authority.

Their authority begins and ends with THEIR software. Not anyone elses. And most certainly not any hardware that isn't M$' own.

Chancing w*nkers :rolleyes:

po0k

\\\        ///
 \\\      ///
  \\\    ///
   \\\  ///__ __
   |   |   |  |  |
   |               |
   |               |
   \               /

I'm not sure if that's a bunny rabbit or a hand giving the V of Defiance......