On Wednesday 08 May 2002 8:48 am, Ian Lynch wrote:
On Wednesday 08 May 2002 01:30, Frank Shute wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 12:05:14AM +0100, an Outlook Express user
[snip]
They probably meant that the company donating the machine can't sell the machine on and keep the licence for say a newer one. Interesting to test that in court. OEM EULA probably state that its not legal to transfer the license but certainly in the USA there was a court case saying otherwise. As it is worded it seems to imply that the school must use the license but I think that is probably just careless drafting.
It must be nice to be you. Personally I'm a cynical old B*. The number of lawyers that MS emply makes the UK CPS look like a hobby. They never carelessly do anything. The express aim of this statement is to tell schools that if they accept a doner PC, they *must* get the license too and they *must* use that software on the PC. They're clever enough not to actually write it but they will have taken a great deal of care to make sure that is the impression given.
Regards,
-- Gary Stainburn This email does not contain private or confidential material as it may be snooped on by interested government parties for unknown and undisclosed purposes - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000