"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4irf75F562eiU1@individual.net...
> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>> visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote
>
>>>> There is no need to hack the OS, the system's license
>>>> doesn't just disappear... but, it IS an OEM license, not
>>>> full so it is for that system only.
>
> Its more complicated than that, legally.
>
>>> Right, right. I know, but how do you upgrade a motherboard, and
>>> transfer the license? You don't. Not anymore. They tie that to
>>> the machine, don't they? New motherbard = new system. No?
>
>> It depends on who you ask. It never hurts to read the
>> EULA on the system HDD. OK, it may hurt a little, but if it
>> doesn't specify motherboard, many will end up taking the
>> interpretation that if the rest of the system was static but only
>> the board changed, it is the same system, not a _second_ system.
>
> And legally its just a repaired system, whatever MS likes to try and
> claim.
>
> Doesnt matter what the EULA says, thats the law.
>

Hmmm...

This topic actually makes me curious. I think it's a legal grey area that
MS takes advantage of, but I wonder where the right to define what
constitutes the "system" (and such) actually falls?

Legally, yes, I think it would be easier to consider the HDD, and the
install on it as "the computer" for all purposes. I remember reading
somewhere in the XP clickwrap (or somewhere) that "significant upgrades"
could cause activation to be refused, but what that means is pretty
ill-defined.

I'm going to do some research on this. I agree with you guys that the
customer (or "end user") has to maintain some rights, but I'm guessing that
they are less than we suppose.

I'll check back with whatever I find.

~e.