visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> 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,

Nope, not when the system is repaired.

> but I wonder where the right to define what constitutes the "system" (and such) actually
> falls?

Its irrelevant legally. You are legally entitled to repair
your system regardless of where the failure is.

> 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.

Legally they cant stop you continuing to use their OS
when you upgrade the system significantly either.

And the OEM systems dont have the validation crap anyway.

> 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.

No they arent. The law is VERY clear, you are legally entitled
to repair a system. MS gets to like that or lump it and cant do
anything about that with some uttery bogus EULA 'agreement'

> I'll check back with whatever I find.