>>>It's simple, Dan. It has NOTHING to do with a middleman. You, your PC and the copy of XP you puchased and installed form one licensing unit. If any component changes you must buy a new license. That means you can't give away your PC to charity with the XP still installed (think you can? Google "PCs for Kids").
>>
>>That is simply not true, Jerry. I didn't look at MS's site but here is a nice article.
>>
>>http://www.zdnetindia.com/reviews/specials/winxp/stories/26271.html
>
>And here is a quote from that article:
>"Consumers should refer to the terms of their license agreement to determine whether or not it is legal to transfer a license to another computer. But in those cases where it is allowed, the product must first be removed from the previous computer. Users may be required to complete the activation on the new computer by placing a call to the Microsoft Activation Center. The details are still a bit hazy, but you can be sure that Microsoft will figure them out before the release."
>
>After nearly a quarter of a century of existance Microsoft the details are 'still hazy' about moving a copy of Winxx from one machine to another. It obviously hasn't been done much, and in the case of PCs for Kids Microsoft wouldn't even allow old Win3.11 on 486 boxes to remain without the charity paying them $300 per copy for a new license. Later they offered to reduce the fee to $90/copy, but hows a charity supposed to afford that? Many commentators noted such an attitude is the highest expression of greed.
>http://home.vicnet.net.au/~victorp/press/Multimedia/2001/August%201st%20PCs%20for%20Kids.htm
>

A bit hazy? That's an opinion. Maybe you should go directly to MS and find out. Base you judgements on facts. I know I can take my copy of ME and install it on another computer. I have to delete the first intall, but I agreed to do that. I'll also know you can do the same with XP. And if you have volume licenses, you can do it all you want.

>You're right, the EULA, which can be seen only after the shrink wrap is broken and which act binds you to the EULA (NOT TRUE), says you don't own the software. That's the problem, and the EULA doesn't make it right. Auto manufacturers could do the same thing. Would you agree to it? Neither would I.

Are you talking about car makers not allowing you to own the car? Because if you are then they already have something like that. It's called a lease. If you're talking about taking the car back after opening the door and not starting it I still think you are wrong. You made a deal and part of that deal includes transfer of ownership. I suppose the dealer could rip up the contract but I don't think there is a law that says they have to. Ever ordered a car exactly as you wanted? Pea green metallic paint with red vinyl seats and no options. Think you can just say "no" when it comes in and leave with your deposit in full?

>We can reverse this immoral an unethical sales tactic by passing laws against it. Unless we now live in USA.INC.

>Right, what you show is the disclaimer, not the license for use. The MS EULA is a license controlling USE. The license controlling use of the VNC software is the GPL license. Both have disclaimers, but a disclaimer on propriatary software for which one has paid big bucks and which is accompanied by draconian restrictions of fair use is aggreggious, to say nothing of being evasive of responsibility. I see that a a congressman is going to introduce legislation making propriatary software vendors liable for security holes in thier products. If that passes you will see explosive improvement in software security coming out of Redmond.
>
>BTW, I know where you are coming from... I used to be an MS software cheerleader.

Umm, it's still part of the license agreement. Contracts include disclaimers.
Did you run the install for VNC?

These are your opinions.

I'm not a cheerleader for MS. I use plenty of non-MS stuff.

>>>>
>>>>If you are going to make the amount paid determine responsibilty you need to step back and rethink that. Just because something is free doesn't exclude the manufacture from liablilty. At what dollar amount should MS start becoming liable? If they sell Windows for $0.01 does the liabilty kick in? Is it tied to profits?
>>>
>>>You "Reduco Adserbum" (:) is just that. If you don't pay anthing for what you get, what are you asking for? Where is the quid quo pro? A contract envolves the exchange of mutually agreed things of value (usually money for software).
>>
>>Is this law? Point me to a place that says a contract must have "value" for both parties. What is "value"? How do you measure it? If someone is loosing "money" does the contract become void? It's no longer "valuable" to them.
>
>Contract law. http://law.anu.edu.au/colin
>
>"Exchange
>A fourth possible basis for making promises legally binding is exchange, that is, that a promise is only binding if it has been giving in exchange for something. This is in fact the traditional basis for legal enforceability of promises in our legal system. A bare promise - a one-way promise where, for example, I simply promise to give you my goat - is not legally enforceable. (But remember, if it is put in a deed then it can be legally enforced.) Contrast the bare promise - usually called a gift promise by lawyers - with an exchange promise: I will give you my goat in exchange for you giving me a pig. We are talking about promises here. So the deal is I promise to deliver my goat to you, say, next Wednesday if you promise to deliver the pig on the same day. There is an exchange of promises. This is what the doctrine of consideration is all about. We will spend some time examining the doctrine of consideration which has some somewhat mysterious aspects to it.

And this says what about value? Just says a contract is an agreement for an exchange.

>>>Isn't that sad! I remember first encountering those legal terms over 20 years ago. We 'understood' what was meant by that. The software would do what the ads said it would do, but don't try to sue the software company if you didn't backup, or you used the software in ways the manual didn't teach, or on substandard equipment, etc.... That folks routinely returned software, received fixes (remember when First Choice came out?) and got new diskette sets with the companies appologies. Borland was like that when Kann ran it. Now, however, there aren't as many choices, and when a vendor has no real competitors they can tell the consumer to ....(see "PCs for Kids")
>>
>>We don't know the facts on the PCs for Kids deal.
>
>We do now. It's been over six months playing out.
>
>> Yeah, it sounds bad but who knows. I'll play it neutral because I see both sides. Personally, I think MS should allow them to give the PCs away. What if MS allowed it? Would everyone jump on, thinking this is precedent. I do beleive that Gates and crew are very charitable and some agreement will be made.
>
>Actually not. They didn't budge. The founder of the charity has been charged with "theft by deception" and a warrant is out for him. Realizing he had 'been had', he disappeared driving a car owned by the charity which he started and which he is president of. BTW, it wasn't the first time Gates told a charity to take a hike. Remember the French charity? MS met secretly with 20 Austrailian charities to 'smooth over' things, but had the audactity to ask them to sign NDAs. None did.

Where are you getting this stuff? If the guy disappeared maybe there is something we don't know??? Sounds fishy. Maybe he was selling the computers with windows for a profit? Remember, Austraila has copyright laws. People wanted them. Just because its a charity probably does not exclude it from law.

>
>It would have cost them nothing and they could have made a neat public relations commerical about it. Considering their karma lately, they could have used some help.
>
>JLK


You might like this: http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/lias/2001-July.txt

In a letter this week to Colin Bayes, the founder and president of PCs
for Kids, Vanessa Hutley, Microsoft's corporate attorney in Sydney, said
"You have acknowledged that your practices... of hard-loading the
software on to PCs is an infringement of Microsoft's copyright...
Microsoft must insist that you find some other source of software..."

Ms Hutley told the Age that Microsoft required that PCs for Kids "work
with its donors" to obtain individual licences, CDs and manuals for each
machine.

"That would cost us up to $600 per machine. We don't have that kind of
money," said Mr Bayes. "I think this is a case of greed and
double-dipping. These are old, secondhand machines, donated to us for
charitable purposes."=20

Sounds like maybe they were taking newer versions and installing that.

Why doesn't the donating company send the license along with the computer? They are just unloading their junk and getting a nice right off is all.

yes, you can transfer a license.

Cost $600 per machine? Maybe they should look at buying OEM licenses. You can get those at Compuplus.com for $133 for XP Pro.

Like I said. We don't know all the facts.

Dan