[X4U] Boot Camp [A]

[Stroller]

On 8 Aug 2006, at 20:34, Ted Burton wrote:
> ...
> As for the morality of the matter, I agree that the end user of OEM  
> software, who is neither the OEM nor a buyer of a computer from the  
> OEM, has participated in something wrongful, and shouldn't be doing  
> it. Let's say it's sinful, but not criminal. There's a difference.

Having contemplated this for a while, I'm not even convinced there.

I'll admit to having a bias, and that I get a whole load more bent  
out of shape over violations of the GPL than I do over someone  
pirating Windows or Office. I get narked when someone expects me to  
work on a pirated installation but I'll admit that I'd get a deal of  
pleasure in the thought of having "got one over" on Microsoft, and  
that I'd be prepared to move my ethical goalposts over them. But I'm  
not convinced it apples here.

Let's say your neighbour comes along and says "hey, Bob! look at this  
great paint I got on close-out - it's really great quality stuff that  
weather-seals your fences, and I got loads of it". So you make an  
agreement with him to dig his ditches or something in exchange for  
him painting your fences and you go out & do your side of the deal  
and then find out later that he used a lower-grade of paint on your  
fences than he did on his own.

This isn't an analogy - I don't care whether he fulfilled his side of  
the contract by painting your fence in the strict letter of the  
agreement, or whether he failed to meet your expectations that he'd  
use the high-grade paint. But in a case where we have two people  
interacting, where there's not much scrutiny, where the contract is  
only verbal... there's a possibility one is within the letter of the  
contract yet still behaving unethically, breaching the spirit of the  
contract. There's massive margin for error and argument and  
interpretation between two neighbours and their fences.

The OEM license we're discussing, on the other hand, was written by  
very expensive lawyers. This license must have had millions spent on  
its drafting, has been revised at least once since XP was released,  
and has been subjected to minute scrutiny by plenty of interested  
parties. I would say that there's a very strong case here to say that  
the license defines the expectations of what you should be able to do  
with the software, not the headline title.

We like throw about analogies here on the internet, so here's one of  
mine:
Saying that it's wrong to buy an OEM copy of Windows for your own use  
is like saying it's wrong to buy a 1kg bulk-bag of bird seed to plant  
in the ground.
It says "bird seed" on the bag! It's for feeding to birds! If you  
want to grow sunflowers then you should go out an buy one of those  
little paper packets of seeds from the garden centre (not the pet  
shop!) and plant those! Those bird seeds are only licensed for  
feeding to birds, and if no-one bought the little expensive packets  
of sunflower seeds (which happen to be packaged by the same company,  
and which cost 10x the price-per-volume) then the company would go  
out of business! Shame on you!!

But that's exactly what you're telling me (or at least Mr Ameeti is)  
- it says on the bag "OEM" so it should only be used by OEMs. Despite  
what it says in the very comprehensive contract that Microsoft have  
drawn up.

[CONTINUED]