I agree with all you've said, though I do have to admit that I am a bit more stringent in my own handling of the software.

As much as I hate the licensing system, I do feel that if I've agreed to the license, I have, if nothing else, at least implied that I've read it. So I do read it. Do I always understand it? Probably not, and I may find myself unwittingly in violation due to interpretation differences, but I do try very hard to live up to the license. I'm probably a dinosaur in that, and I hope with all my heart that MS will go so far over the line one day in their zeal to rule our lives that the legal system will finally step in and once and for all put an end to this nonsense.

You mention that you have the MSDN - can I assume Universal? Well, I certainly hope you are not using your MSDN copy of Windows 2000 or XP on the computer that you use to send these messages. Since they are not directly involved with development and testing, you'd be in violation of your MSDN license.

This is from the MSDN Q&A on the MS website:

What do you mean by "production?" What are examples of test and development work?

By "production" we mean any activity that is personal, for general business use,
or not directly related to the testing and development of software applications.

Examples of (prohibited) production use include:

Installing Windows 98 to play games for entertainment.

Installing Windows 2000 Server and Exchange Server to set up an e-mail system
that you use to send personal and/or business-related e-mail.

You may not use your MSDN Subscription as a substitute for purchasing a retail
license for an operating system if you do more than develop and test on your
computer.

Pay particular attention to that last paragraph.

Alan

>Alan,
>
>I agree, these licensing issues are a real nightmare. Especially when you're not a native english speaker.
>
>You've mentioned that licensing software should be the same as with music. Well can you imagine:
>
>1. You've to buy additional licenses for every CD player you play the CD on ?
>2. You cannot let anyone else listen to your music ?
>3. You cannot play music on a CD player X because the licence of Music Company Y
>
>However, with the licensing of Music:
>1. You'll have to pay additional fee's to play music in public places.
>2. To me its unclear how I would get a new copy of a CD if my own one is broken.
>3. It would be interesting to be able yo buy upgrades (new albums of the same artist).
>4. If you think Software is expensive, well try to buy an album of popular artists in Holland. It's pure theft. Anywhere else in europe they're 20 - 50% less expensive. No wonder people are copying albums.
>
>
>I agree, Licensing of software sucks. Therefore I don't read EULA's anymore. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I violate licenses regulary, but there are some cases where I make exceptions. If I got a Dutch versions of Office XP, but want to install an english one, I won't acquire another license for that. If there is some uncertainty about licensing of a certain product, I'm not going to call the vendor anymore but use it under my interpretations of the license.
>
>As for the upgrade license of VFP8, You don't think I'm going to deinstall VFP 8 when I want to use VFP 7 for existing projects do you ? The expectation of not having both versions working at the same time becomes purely technical and is only bugging the developer and is purely a M$ marketing move.
>
>Do you think that any judge will agree with microsoft sueing you because you run a VFP application from a Linux server ? I think not.
>
>Sure, the basic Items in a license (e.g. upgrade, about the number of users, expiring etc) makes lots of sense, but I refuse to be belittled and confirm to all and every detail.
>
>As I have a MSDN subscription, I got rid of a lot of these licensing issues, but for those who do have not, I don't think you'll need consult a lawyer to read the license.
>
>Walter,