Preinstalled Windows: AARGH! I can't get it off!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25085.html If a PC shipped with Windows preinstalled, can you remove the OS and install Linux instead? Well, no, according to Microsoft. A somewhat obscure Microsoft site aimed at helping schools deal with donated computers flatly states: "It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine." -- -------------------------------------- Malcolm Herbert Red Hat Europe t: +44 1483 734955 m: +44 7720 079845 --------------------------------------
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25085.html
If a PC shipped with Windows preinstalled, can you remove the OS and install Linux instead? Well, no, according to Microsoft. A somewhat obscure Microsoft site aimed at helping schools deal with donated computers flatly states: "It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine."
According to a later Register story they have removed this requirment. Apparently what they really ment to say is that people donating machines should donate any OEM software. (Well except in sensible parts of the world, like Germany, where courts have ruled that a PC is simply a bundle of parts, with any OEM software being part of the bundle.) -- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
According to a later Register story they have removed this requirment. Apparently what they really ment to say is that people donating machines should donate any OEM software. (Well except in sensible parts of the world, like Germany, where courts have ruled that a PC is simply a bundle of parts, with any OEM software being part of the bundle.)
Yes, I can give away my computer, but remove and keep my sound card, should I wish. I just say "No sound card". Maybe I missed the point. -- Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 07:24:46PM +0100, Matt wrote:
According to a later Register story they have removed this requirment. Apparently what they really ment to say is that people donating machines should donate any OEM software. (Well except in sensible parts of the world, like Germany, where courts have ruled that a PC is simply a bundle of parts, with any OEM software being part of the bundle.)
Yes, I can give away my computer, but remove and keep my sound card, should I wish. I just say "No sound card".
Maybe I missed the point.
To my mind your soundcard is more an integral part of your computer than the software. Do the soundcard manufacturers say on their sites that if you donate your PC to a school it's illegal for you to give them the PC without the soundcard? Thought not. It's complete garbage and wouldn't be enforced by any court in the land. MS's EULA is also complete garbage and isn't worth the paper it's written on. They should cut to the quick and just provide a disclaimer that their software comes with no warranty whatsoever & is only protected by copyright in law. My understanding is that copyrighted material is for fair use and the person who sells it to you can't then impose conditions on you that will prohibit it's fair use. In fact it applies to anything you buy doesn't it? Which is why I believe I'm not breaking the law by running one licensed copy of NT on 2 different machines, laptop & workstation, because to my mind it constitutes fair use the same way you can copy an audio CD for personal use. I must write to Microsoft and ask them to sue me, might be fun. Goes without saying IANAL. I'd like to hear others opinions on the `fair use' argument I've espoused here. Don't schools copy some sections of printed educational material and isn't that also considered fair use? Where do you draw the line? Why's software considered so different from other data? -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/ What happened last night can happen again.
On Tuesday 07 May 2002 11:54 pm, Frank Shute wrote: [snip]
Which is why I believe I'm not breaking the law by running one licensed copy of NT on 2 different machines, laptop & workstation, because to my mind it constitutes fair use the same way you can copy an audio CD for personal use.
I thought that was still breaking copyright?
I must write to Microsoft and ask them to sue me, might be fun.
Goes without saying IANAL. I'd like to hear others opinions on the `fair use' argument I've espoused here.
Don't schools copy some sections of printed educational material and isn't that also considered fair use? Where do you draw the line? Why's software considered so different from other data?
Back when I was at school, (yes they did have schools then), staff used to copy parts of reference manuals, text books etc., but even then they kney that they were actually breaking copyright law. Unless the law's changed since then it's still illegal to photocopy copyrighted material without the express permission of the copyright owner. -- 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
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 09:31:06AM +0100, Gary wrote:
On Tuesday 07 May 2002 11:54 pm, Frank Shute wrote: [snip]
Which is why I believe I'm not breaking the law by running one licensed copy of NT on 2 different machines, laptop & workstation, because to my mind it constitutes fair use the same way you can copy an audio CD for personal use.
I thought that was still breaking copyright?
I think I remember reading a court case where the copying of LPs (I think you're too young to remember those Gary;) to tape was considered fair game.
I must write to Microsoft and ask them to sue me, might be fun.
Goes without saying IANAL. I'd like to hear others opinions on the `fair use' argument I've espoused here.
Don't schools copy some sections of printed educational material and isn't that also considered fair use? Where do you draw the line? Why's software considered so different from other data?
Back when I was at school, (yes they did have schools then), staff used to copy parts of reference manuals, text books etc., but even then they kney that they were actually breaking copyright law.
Unless the law's changed since then it's still illegal to photocopy copyrighted material without the express permission of the copyright owner.
I thought that if the school had a copy(s) of the book in their library then copying bits of it eg. for setting questions etc. was also fair use. I certainly haven't heard of schools being busted for doing so and I can't imagine the author of a school textbook being willing to support such an action nor the publisher for that matter. It's another one of those grey areas regards copyright I think. -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/ "Yes, and I feel bad about rendering their useless carci into dogfood..." -- Badger comics
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 09:31:06AM +0100, Gary wrote:
On Tuesday 07 May 2002 11:54 pm, Frank Shute wrote: [snip]
Which is why I believe I'm not breaking the law by running one licensed copy of NT on 2 different machines, laptop & workstation, because to my mind it constitutes fair use the same way you can copy an audio CD for personal use.
I thought that was still breaking copyright?
I think I remember reading a court case where the copying of LPs (I think you're too young to remember those Gary;) to tape was considered fair game.
This was probably also before the "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988)" came into force though. Statutes tend to "trump" pre-existing case law.
MS's EULA is also complete garbage and isn't worth the paper it's written on. They should cut to the quick and just provide a disclaimer that their software comes with no warranty whatsoever & is only protected by copyright in law. My understanding is that copyrighted material is for fair use and the person who sells it to you can't then impose conditions on you that will prohibit it's fair use. In fact it applies to anything you buy doesn't it?
The conditions Microsoft are trying to impose arn't even about use. They are in effect about resale. As if you had a book which tried to impose conditions on selling it to a secondhand bookshop or even on giving it to a jumble sale... Book publishers lost quite a few court cases over this in the early 20th century.
Which is why I believe I'm not breaking the law by running one licensed copy of NT on 2 different machines, laptop & workstation, because to my mind it constitutes fair use the same way you can copy an audio CD for personal use.
According to the letter of current UK copyright law you cannot do either. Even though several law lords agree that the current law is both daft and unenforcable parliment dosn't appear much interested in doing anything about it.
Don't schools copy some sections of printed educational material and isn't that also considered fair use? Where do you draw the line? Why's
That's because the copyright holders collectivly grant such a licence.
software considered so different from other data?
The publishing industry (especially the section publishing music, films and TV) want to have other data treated more like software...
On Wednesday 08 May 2002 9:38 am, Mark Evans wrote:
MS's EULA is also complete garbage and isn't worth the paper it's written on. They should cut to the quick and just provide a disclaimer that their software comes with no warranty whatsoever & is only protected by copyright in law. My understanding is that copyrighted material is for fair use and the person who sells it to you can't then impose conditions on you that will prohibit it's fair use. In fact it applies to anything you buy doesn't it?
The conditions Microsoft are trying to impose arn't even about use. They are in effect about resale. As if you had a book which tried to impose conditions on selling it to a secondhand bookshop or even on giving it to a jumble sale... Book publishers lost quite a few court cases over this in the early 20th century.
I think that you will find that either current or proposed law does control the resale of even loaning of copyrighted books - effectively making second-hand book shops and evel libraries illegal. Sorry, but I don't have any actual details on this, but I'm sure it came up on WYLUG or the schools list a while back.
Which is why I believe I'm not breaking the law by running one licensed copy of NT on 2 different machines, laptop & workstation, because to my mind it constitutes fair use the same way you can copy an audio CD for personal use.
According to the letter of current UK copyright law you cannot do either. Even though several law lords agree that the current law is both daft and unenforcable parliment dosn't appear much interested in doing anything about it.
There are some firms out there who will let you do this, such as Borland. They were quite happy or me to install Delphi 3 on as many PC's as I wanted provided that there was only every one copy in use at any one time. However, this was in their ELUA, and is not common practice elsewhere.
Don't schools copy some sections of printed educational material and isn't that also considered fair use? Where do you draw the line? Why's
That's because the copyright holders collectivly grant such a licence.
software considered so different from other data?
The publishing industry (especially the section publishing music, films and TV) want to have other data treated more like software...
Hence the 'not for public broadcast, e.g. oil rigs, pubs etc' Wouldn't exactly say an oil rig was a public place!! -- 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
--- Frank Shute
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 07:24:46PM +0100, Matt wrote:
According to a later Register story they have removed this requirment. Apparently what they really ment to
is that people donating machines should donate any OEM software. (Well except in sensible parts of the world,
say like
Germany, where courts have ruled that a PC is simply a bundle of parts, with any OEM software being part of the bundle.)
Yes, I can give away my computer, but remove and keep my sound card, should I wish. I just say "No sound card".
Maybe I missed the point.
Do the soundcard manufacturers say on their sites that if you donate your PC to a school it's illegal for you to give them the PC without the soundcard? Thought not.
My point exactly. No one else does it (hence _my_ soundcard example). It's outrageous. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com
If we are going to 'dis' the 'opposition' and bring on board the wider community we need to atttack where it is needed and not otherwise. All this Microsoft statement every meant was that if you acquired a PC that had had MS windows on then you were entitled to it IF you wanted it. Perfectly reasonable if that is what you want. There's plenty of real stuff to attack so lets gets those sights focussed! James Carter South Less School , can you remove the OS and
install Linux instead? Well, no, according to Microsoft. A somewhat obscure Microsoft site aimed at helping schools deal with donated computers flatly states: "It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine."
-- -------------------------------------- Malcolm Herbert Red Hat Europe t: +44 1483 734955 m: +44 7720 079845 --------------------------------------
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-linux-uk-schools-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands, e-mail: suse-linux-uk-schools-help@suse.com
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 12:05:14AM +0100, an Outlook Express user wrote:
If we are going to 'dis' the 'opposition' and bring on board the wider community we need to atttack where it is needed and not otherwise. All this Microsoft statement every meant was that if you acquired a PC that had had MS windows on then you were entitled to it IF you wanted it. Perfectly reasonable if that is what you want.
You obviously have difficulty reading or comprehending (from www.microsoft.com): Q. Why should a donor include the operating system with their PC donation? A. It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine. If a company or individual donates a machine to your school, it must be donated with the operating system that was installed on the PC.
There's plenty of real stuff to attack so lets gets those sights focussed!
Have another go to see if you can detect any MS FUD in the above paragraphs and then perhaps you can advise us whether it's appropriate for that company to peddle such a lie and whether it's proper to focus upon it in such a forum as this. -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/
On Wednesday 08 May 2002 01:30, Frank Shute wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 12:05:14AM +0100, an Outlook Express user
wrote:
If we are going to 'dis' the 'opposition' and bring on board the wider community we need to atttack where it is needed and not otherwise. All this Microsoft statement every meant was that if you acquired a PC that had had MS windows on then you were entitled to it IF you wanted it. Perfectly reasonable if that is what you want.
You obviously have difficulty reading or comprehending (from www.microsoft.com):
Q. Why should a donor include the operating system with their PC donation?
A. It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine. If a company or individual donates a machine to your school, it must be donated with the operating system that was installed on the PC.
There's plenty of real stuff to attack so lets gets those sights focussed!
Have another go to see if you can detect any MS FUD in the above paragraphs and then perhaps you can advise us whether it's appropriate for that company to peddle such a lie and whether it's proper to focus upon it in such a forum as this.
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. Regards, -- IanL
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
Then why not simply state 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.
Or an attempt to deliberatly mislead.
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
participants (7)
-
Frank Shute -
Gary Stainburn -
Ian Lynch -
James & Cybèle -
Malcolm Herbert -
Mark Evans -
Matt Johnson