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

>>>> 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?

>>> It's also been discussed over and over on usenet, there
>>> is no point in rehashing again in a hardware group.

>> Yes there is when its repair being discussed.

>> That other discussion involves selling the OS separate
>> to the hardware and MS cant legally sustain that claim
>> either in any country with a decent legal system anyway.

> Yeah. If they're going to change things on the software end that
> cause major pains for hardware upgrades, I think it's a valid topic.

> Anyway, as far as I can tell, you are 100% right, kony.

Not legally he aint with the repair being discussed.

> And yes, it has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere.

> The intention with Vista is to make a Windows license non-transferable through an
> upgrade of the motherboard.
> http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/49364

That isnt legally sustainable in any country with a decent legal system.
And clearly doesnt even apply to the REPAIR being discussed anyway.

> I hate to turn any thread into a bitch about M$ thing (not really) but if this is true
> then I don't see a lot of the people in this group going to Vista.

I doubt that most will give a damn about that particular M$ stupidity.

> We love shiny new motherboards. If they tell us we can't have them,

They arent even saying that. That is clearly just
relevant to the OEM versions, not the retail package.

> then I think they'll lose some segment of
> alt.comp.hardware as a customer base.

I doubt it. I doubt many of those are using an OEM package anyway,
and those that are should be able to do an end run around that shit.

> Microsoft doesn't make computers, they make software,

They do make some hardware.

> yet this claim of tying software to hardware makes them de facto computer manufacturers.

No it doesnt. Its just a software license detail.

> In my mind it comes down to your software trying to
> define your hardware in order to sell you more software.

Nope, since it ONLY applys to the OEM versions of the OS.

> If not illegal, it certainly seems unethical.

Its hardly that when you dont have to get the OEM version.

> I'll shut up now.

Wota wimp.