On 9 Aug 2006, at 16:26, Robert Ameeti wrote: > At 3:15 PM +0100, 8/9/06, Stroller wrote: > >> The title "Original Equipment Manufacturer" does not make a >> contract between you & Microsoft, prohibiting you as an end-user >> from installing the OEM version. Microsoft wrote this long license >> that says "well, it's ok, end-users can buy this as long as they >> buy a USB cable to go with it" and my speculation is that not only >> is it legal to follow the letter of this license, but Microsoft >> knew what they intended with that license and there's no >> "immorality" or "unscrupulousness" in following it to the letter, >> either. > > 'Tis interesting that you like to read and interpret contracts as > fits your wants. There is nothing in the license that says anything > about USB cables or small additional hardware purchase along with > or anything of that type. It does say that it is a license between > Microsoft and the OEM. The definition of OEM is defined and it is > not someone who installs a USB cable or hard drive. Please give citations you whiny little girl. I've already quoted: ...This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you ... and the manufacturer ("Manufacturer") of the ... computer system component ("HARDWARE") with which you acquired the Microsoft software product(s) identified above ("SOFTWARE"). a computer system component can easily mean a USB cable or hard drive Put up, or shut up. Face it you're wrong, and crying about it doesn't make any difference unless you can prove it. > ... I could equally feel that the GPL license need not be honored > since the owners have no desire to make real money from their work > so my selling their work does not infringe on their making money. > They don't lose out when I sell my product that has their code in it. Heh. I thought of that one before I posted, but it's irrelevant. An end-user buying an OEM copy of Windows is not "dishonoring" any contract. You're wrong and you've yet to even TRY to prove otherwise. Stroller.