Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Feb 2006 12:41 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Permalink for comment 96598
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-29
Also, how sure are we that this is actually serious?
If you read through the comments at the bottom, there are a few links to a .doc file at Microsoft which supposedly contains the information.
The thing I don't understand is that this is talking about OEM licenses which are separate than retail licenses. The reason you can buy cheap computers in the store despite the cost of a retail boxed version of the OS is because they use OEM licensing; you get what you pay for, and one of those things you're not paying for is the ability to use it on another computer/motherboard. And you did agree to this license before you opened/installed/used the software.
This particular "I have a license I can do what I want with it despite what it says" argument makes only slightly more sense to me than people who think they're getting a deal on an Academic license to make them "legal", even if they don't qualify for academic licensing....