63 replies to this topic

[Holmes.Sherlock]

Before coming on to the point, let me declare that the reason I picked up this sub-forum to start a thread on legality of software (especially license terms of different versions of Windows) is simple I failed to find a suitable one as this is not specifically tied to any vertain version of Windows but applicable to entire Windows family as a whole.

There are two types of licenses (among so many possible way of categorizing licenses e.g. duration, number of users, version of OS and so on) viz. OEM (Original Equipement Manufacturer) and Non-OEM/Retail. Googling for the exact differences between these two only confused me a lot. While software piracy is being taken care of by appropriate authorities in many countries, I was surprised at how much still people are unaware/uninformed about the legal issues concerned with SLA (Software License Agreement). Possibly, even one who pays to purchase a copy of software (in our case, Windows) hardly cares to go through what has been written in EULA (End User's License Agreement).

The distinct differences which I could figure out (either correctly or incorrectly) from the discussion going on several forums are:

• OEM version is cheaper than Retail version.
• OEM comes with more restrictive a license than the Retail one.
• OEM operating system may include vendor-specific applications bundled into it, e.g. DELL Utilities. That's why, those are supposed to be backed up by vendor-specific recovery utilities as it is mostly seen in laptops being shipped with the OS along with. Retail version of an OS is the bare OS itself, out-of-the-box.
• Though the acronym 'OEM' suggests that it has to be supplied by some hardware manufacturer or tied up with major components building the system, especially the Motherboard, BUT many vendors are illegaly selling it just like Retail version at a lower price. Retaile version of the OS is can be installed on to any system, precisely to the limit of the number of systems allowed by the licenses.
• Any major changes in hardware configuration causes the OEM version to be re-activated while a Retail version allows it without needing the activation to be done again.

At this point, here are what my confusions are:

• Is selling 'OEM' operating system without the associated hardware truely illegal?
• If the answer to #1 is 'Yes', then why those vendors selling OEM OS as the Retail one are not being sued?
• Is there any special mechanism built-into OEM software, which is NOT there in Retail version, to detect change in hardware?
• A general question - when someone purchase a multi-user version of Windows, is he/she given that many number of different license keys or simply the EULA allows the usage of same license key on multiple machines?
• My perception is - for even a single user license, if the software (especially Windows) is installed on one machine, un-installed and then re-installed on to a different machine - this series of action is perfectly legal. Am I correct?
• Any other relevant information.

Can someone try to shed some light?


References:

• http://www.pcmag.com...,2087792,00.asp
• http://graphicssoft....oemsoftware.htm
• http://graphicssoft....ftware.-UFl.htm
• http://forums.about....ges?msg=5848.12
• http://compreviews.a...neral/a/OEM.htm

[MedEvil]

Is selling 'OEM' operating system without the associated hardware truely illegal?

OEM versions are meant to be sold at special prices to hardware vendors. However this kind of favour, has since been declared illegal, at least in the EU.
So M$ had to decide to not sell OEM versions any longer or allow sales without hardware according to local law. They decided for marketing reasons for the later.

Is there any special mechanism built-into OEM software, which is NOT there in Retail version, to detect change in hardware?

There is no difference between a OEM and a retail version in this regard.
You may have confused this with a corporate or pro version versus a home version.
Those do behave differently.

A general question - when someone purchase a multi-user version of Windows, is he/she given that many number of different license keys or simply the EULA allows the usage of same license key on multiple machines?

Depends on what version of Windows one acuires. I've seen both. Either a License with a number of serials or a volume license with just a single serial, which clearly states, on how many computers Windows is allowed to be installed.

My perception is - for even a single user license, if the software (especially Windows) is installed on one machine, un-installed and then re-installed on to a different machine - this series of action is perfectly legal. Am I correct?

Yes it is. One difference between Germany and the US used to be, that in Germany i'm only allowed to install a single license Windows on 1 computer. In the US one was allowed to install it one more than 1 computer, given that no more than 1 was used at any given time.
Not sure if this still applies though.

Any other relevant information.</ul>Can someone try to shed some light?

All the confuion about legal vs. illegal comes from the lazyness of M$.
Instead of giving each local version of Windows it's own EULA, which is in accordance with local law, all versions have the same EULA, with the little postfix "unless overruled by local law".

So in practice, the EULA is no more than a wishlist of M$. Which wishes are granted and which are not, completely depends on your local law.

Anyone interested in studying law before installing Windows?

[Wonko the Sane]

OEM versions are meant to be sold at special prices to hardware vendors. However this kind of favour, has since been declared illegal, at least in the EU.

Can you cite a reference/sentence/whatever?
(Like in "news to me")

So M$ had to decide to not sell OEM versions any longer or allow sales without hardware according to local law. They decided for marketing reasons for the later.

Can you cite a reference/sentence/whatever?
(Like in "news to me")

There is no difference between a OEM and a retail version in this regard.

Which regard?

You may have confused this with a corporate or pro version versus a home version.
Those do behave differently.

Sure they do, the pro vs. home are different OS versions, whilst "Corporate", "Retail" and "OEM" (this latter to be divided in TWO bif sub-families of "BIG-OEM" and "Generic-OEM" and the former has an additional sub-sub-family "SLIC-enabled-OEM") are different License/Commercial versions.

All the confusion about legal vs. illegal comes from the lazyness of M$.
Instead of giving each local version of Windows it's own EULA, which is in accordance with local law, all versions have the same EULA, with the little postfix "unless overruled by local law".

So in practice, the EULA is no more than a wishlist of M$. Which wishes are granted and which are not, completely depends on your local law.

Sure, and as always happens a number of sentences have even applied the Law in different manners (in the same country).

Holmes.Sherlock
It is difficult to give you a proper answer/comment, because you start from a few "base" assumptions that are partially "wrong", and the matter is very confused anyway.

To start you on the "right approach", first thing that you have to consider is this difference, when you (final user) buy a "Retail" (or Corporate) license you buy it from Microsoft (or one of their re-sellers), thus the seller that is obliged to support you is Microsoft (directly or through one of their partners/subsidiaries/delegates/etc.).
When you (final user) buy a computer with an OEM Microsoft OS (from one of the "big OEM's", let's say HP or Dell), you buy the OS from the OEM (and the OEM is the one that is obliged to support you, as MS keeps the price lower BECAUSE it isn't going to provide support to the OEM or to the final user) AND the license from MS is "tied" to the specific hardware.
The special case (which is probably one of those that Medevil was referring to) is that Microsoft some years ago changed it's policies and introduced (without of course making anything clear or clearer) the figure of the "small OEM", i.e. it provided an OEM version of the OS to "low volume OEM", like the shop around your corner and also to you as "DIY OEM".
The difference is again subtle (but not much) if you buy a PC with an "OEM OS" installed from the shop around the corner, the shop is the OEM and they are the seller (just like the "BIG OEM").
But if you build your own PC, you are allowed (in some countries, it's not all the same) to buy an OEM OS, normally together with a piece of hardware, the whole point is that if this is the case you become the OEM, and, as thus, you need to "support yourself".
The EULA only regulates the End User License, and not the "whole chain".



Wonko

[Holmes.Sherlock]

Sure, and as always happens a number of sentences have even applied the Law in different manners (in the same country).

How can local law affect a software manufacturer's license policy? Today, if I write a piece of software, shouldn't I be the sole authority to say the final word regarding how it'll be commercialized under what terms and conditions?

To start you on the "right approach", first thing that you have to consider is this difference, when you (final user) buy a "Retail" (or Corporate) license you buy it from Microsoft (or one of their re-sellers), thus the seller that is obliged to support you is Microsoft (directly or through one of their partners/subsidiaries/delegates/etc.).
When you (final user) buy a computer with an OEM Microsoft OS (from one of the "big OEM's", let's say HP or Dell), you buy the OS from the OEM (and the OEM is the one that is obliged to support you, as MS keeps the price lower BECAUSE it isn't going to provide support to the OEM) AND the license from MS is "tied" to the specific hardware.

Is the whole difference lies in providing or NOT providing support for the piece of software purchased/

The special case (which is probably one of those that Medevil was referring to) is that Microsoft some years ago changed it's policies and introduced (without of course making anything clear or clearer) the figure of the "small OEM", i.e. it provided an OEM version of the OS to "low volume OEM", like the shop around your corner and also to you as "DIY OEM".
The difference is again subtle (but not much) if you buy a PC with an "OEM OS" installed from the shop around the corner, the shop is the OEM and they are the seller (just like the "BIG OEM").
But if you build your own PC, you are allowed (in some countries, it's not all the same) to buy an OEM OS, normally together with a piece of hardware, the whole point is that if this is the case you become the OEM, and, as thus, you need to "support yourself".
The EULA only regulates the End User License, and not the "whole chain".

'M' in OEM is a misnomer in that case. With "manufacturer", what I understand is that person/business unit should build the piece of hardware, at least some part of it, from the scratch, not merely putting bits and pieces together to form a functioning system.

[paraglider]

Local law will always win. Just look at the browser choice screen that the EU forced on MS in Europe.

[Wonko the Sane]

How can local law affect a software manufacturer's license policy? Today, if I write a piece of software, shouldn't I be the sole authority to say the final word regarding how it'll be commercialized under what terms and conditions?

No.
A license is a contract.
Any contract in *any* country is void or null ab initio :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_initio
limited to the parts of it that are forbidden by or contrary to the local Laws.

A typical example of this is if in your license you allow the use to some category (and not to other ones) that are considered equal in that respect by the local Law, some "free" software Authors - of course in perfect good faith - make a license stating that their software cannot be used (or it is not licensed to) by the military.
This, besides being not anymore a "free" license, see:
http://en.wikipedia....le_restrictions
would be nullified by any Court, on the base that military personnel has the same rights then any other people .

As a more extreme example, you could license your software to any final user on the condition he/she belongs to a given race, religion or political party, a clearly unlawful condition in most countries.

More generally any contract where the scope, the goods or the service given or received or the form of payment are contrary to the local Law is null (of course the Law itself may change from country to country).

Is the whole difference lies in providing or NOT providing support for the piece of software purchased/

No, that's part of the (and not the whole) reason WHY different Commercial versions have different prices, the OEM is sold for less because less is product/service is offered in exchange for less money.

'M' in OEM is a misnomer in that case. With "manufacturer", what I understand is that person/business unit should build the piece of hardware, at least some part of it, from the scratch, not merely putting bits and pieces together to form a functioning system.

Well, most OEM's (apart for some products of the very BIG ones, like Dell, HP, etc.) are called in jargon "assemblers" because that's exactly what they do, they take pieces available on the market, and assemble them together, in the case of the "big" OEM, some are also NOT Manufacturers at all (in the sense that they do not manufacture or engineer anything), they are re-branders, i.e. they take products made by someone else and commercialize them "as-they-are", only with a new name or with minor esthetic changes/customizations (this is particular evident for "simpler" devices, like routers, switches, USB sticks, etc. but it also applies to whole "lines" of PC's).
The shop around the corner or yourself as DYI-OEM are much nearer to the concept of "manufacturer" than many known brands.




Wonko

[Holmes.Sherlock]

No.
A license is a contract.
Any contract in *any* country is void or null ab initio :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_initio
limited to the parts of it that are forbidden by or contrary to the local Laws.

Now, I remember. Though not directly related to software licensing issues, but definitely an example of how government can interfere with individual developer's freedom, this can serve as a vivid example:
http://en.wikipedia....l_investigation

Criminal investigation

Shortly after its release, PGP encryption found its way outside the United States, and in February 1993 Zimmermann became the formal target of a criminal investigation by the US Government for "munitions export without a license". Cryptosystems using keys larger than 40 bits were then considered munitions within the definition of the US export regulations; PGP has never used keys smaller than 128 bits so it qualified at that time. Penalties for violation, if found guilty, were substantial. After several years, the investigation of Zimmermann was closed without filing criminal charges against him or anyone else.
Zimmermann challenged these regulations in a curious way. He published the entire source code of PGP in a hardback book,^[13]via MIT Press, which was distributed and sold widely. Anybody wishing to build their own copy of PGP could buy the $60 book, cut off the covers, separate the pages, and scan them using an OCR program, creating a set of source code text files. One could then build the application using the freely available GNU Compiler Collection. PGP would thus be available anywhere in the world. The claimed principle was simple: export of munitions—guns, bombs, planes, and software—was (and remains) restricted; but the export of books is protected by the First Amendment. The question was never tested in court with respect to PGP. In cases addressing other encryption software, however, two federal appeals courts have established the rule that cryptographic software source code is speech protected by the First Amendment (the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bernstein case and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Junger case).
US export regulations regarding cryptography remain in force, but were liberalized substantially throughout the late 1990s. Since 2000, compliance with the regulations is also much easier. PGP encryption no longer meets the definition of a non-exportable weapon, and can be exported internationally except to 7 specific countries and a list of named groups and individuals^[14] (with whom substantially all US trade is prohibited under various US export controls).

[MedEvil]

@Wonko
Nope , not what i was talking about.
There was a ruling of the europen court around 2002/2003, which basicly boiled down to non-discrimination.
A business is not allowed to choose it's costumers on any other base, than that they are willing to pay the asked price.
Selling OEM versions only to companies of a certain business model, was ruled to be in violation of this.

And as for the Support. ;-)
A retail XP Pro did cost 129 Euro. A OEM Version between 60 and 30 Euro, depending on the year.
How much support does one buy for 70 - 100 Euro?
Exactly 3 support requests. After that, one had to pay per request.

btw. The exact same terms, as if one uses any of M$ free softwares.

So a OEM Version of XP Pro + an upgrade to IE7 gave you the exact same deal, for a way cheaper price.

[Wonko the Sane]

There was a ruling of the europen court around 2002/2003, which basicly boiled down to non-discrimination.
A business is not allowed to choose it's costumers on any other base, than that they are willing to pay the asked price.
Selling OEM versions only to companies of a certain business model, was ruled to be in violation of this.

Hmmm.
That's why I asked if you had a reference, I can find NO traces of such a sentence, see:
http://www.as.miami....softLongEdi.pdf
are you possibly misaken with the "bundling" of WMP in Win2K?
Or with one of the US Court decisions?
http://www.law.north...Contracting.pdf

And as for the Support. ;-)
A retail XP Pro did cost 129 Euro. A OEM Version between 60 and 30 Euro, depending on the year.
How much support does one buy for 70 - 100 Euro?
Exactly 3 support requests. After that, one had to pay per request.

btw. The exact same terms, as if one uses any of M$ free softwares.

So a OEM Version of XP Pro + an upgrade to IE7 gave you the exact same deal, for a way cheaper price.

Well, no.
There is the additional - not so trifling - clause that ties the License to a single PC. (the one that you knowingly ignore because you know - or think - that noone will ever come after you).
As a matter of fact one (not you) pays the difference not only because of support, but because one is entitled to move the install of the OS to different hardware.


Wonko

[MedEvil]

I don't know, where to find that ruling.
I read about it, in one of the german computer magazines at the time.

There is the additional - not so trifling - clause that ties the License to a single PC. (the one that you knowingly ignore because you know - or think - that noone will ever come after you).
As a matter of fact one (not you) pays the difference not only because of support, but because one is entitled to move the install of the OS to different hardware.

What kind of nonsense is this?
A.) If someone else would have to pick up the tab, for me using a OEM version, than other people would also have to pick up the tab, for all the OEM version distributed by the big computer vendors.
B.) The single user OEM and the single user Retail can both only be installed and used on 1 computer.
C.) Everyone is entitled to move ones OS to another computer. This point isn't even debateable, since M$ does verify the hardware of the computer to generate a valif activation.
If one weren't allowed to switch, they would not give you a new activation!

[Wonko the Sane]

I don't know, where to find that ruling.
I read about it, in one of the german computer magazines at the time.

Good, then it is possible that your remembering of the contents of the sentence are not correct.

What kind of nonsense is this?

Always the same one, which you seemingly refuse not only to accept (which is allright ) but even to admit the existence of (which is of course false ).
The typical OEM EULA (End User License Agreement) states:
http://download.micr...3f31bf3a755.pdf

1.2 SOFTWARE as a Component of the COMPUTER - Transfer. This license may
not be shared, transferred to or used concurrently on different computers. The SOFTWARE is
licensed with the COMPUTER as a single integrated product and may only be used with the
COMPUTER. If the SOFTWARE is not accompanied by HARDWARE, you may not use the
SOFTWARE. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a
permanent sale or transfer of the COMPUTER, provided you retain no copies of the SOFTWARE.
If the SOFTWARE is an upgrade, any transfer must also include all prior versions of the
SOFTWARE. This transfer must also include the Certificate of Authenticity label. The transfer
may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user
receiving the Software must agree to all the EULA terms.

Here there are several interesting resources:
http://michaelsteven...com/oemeula.htm

Including the actual OEM System Builder license agreement (NOT the EULA):
http://oem.microsoft..._SB_License.pdf

These may help you:
http://www.microsoft...m_licenses.aspx
http://download.micr...742/oslicqa.doc

And just to add to the confusion :
http://www.maximumpc...ilds_not_resale
http://www.everythin...ery-unravelled/

The "general idea" is seemingly more clear on Windows 8 license:
http://www.zdnet.com...s-8-7000002866/


Wonko

[cdob]

There is the additional - not so trifling - clause that ties the License to a single PC. (the one that you knowingly ignore because you know - or think - that noone will ever come after you).

The german Bundesgerichtshof, Federal High Court of Justice, ruled usage of OEM software.
A OEM software is not tied to a single PC at certain circumstances.
I'm allowed to move the installation to a different hardware in germany.

http://de.wikipedia....i/Erstausrüster
http://www.heise.de/...cken-29554.html
http://juris.bundesg...le=dokument.pdf
http://juris.bundesg...1&pos=0&anz=157

[Wonko the Sane]

The german Bundesgerichtshof, Federal High Court of Justice, ruled usage of OEM software.
A OEM software is not tied to a single PC at certain circumstances.
I'm allowed to move the installation to a different hardware in germany.

Good, so it's not the EU, it's the local German Court.
And it is not 2002 or 2003 but 2000.

From the little I can get from the Google translate from German of this one:
http://juris.bundesg...le=dokument.pdf
it seems like the issue is about a firm that sold an OEM OS (DOS + Win 3.1) wthout the accompanying hardware.

From the little I can get from the Google translate from German of this one:
http://juris.bundesg...1&pos=0&anz=157
it is a completely different issue, the claim is by a firm that "re-cycles" computers and re-uses the COA and backup or "install" CD's.

None of them - again from the little I can understand from the Google translate - appear to have any relevance to the central issue, i.e. if the End User that receives the OS in OEM version and bundled to a computer, can transfer the OS to different hardware without breaching the EULA.

Which again, doesn't mean:

• that it is not possible (technically)
  
• that half the world does it anyway
  
• that MS does not particularly enforce this provision against end users
  
• that this particular clause in the license does not exist
  
• that this particular clause is legally valid and binding

Wonko

[cdob]

None of them - again from the little I can understand from the Google translate - appear to have any relevance to the central issue, i.e. if the End User that receives the OS in OEM version and bundled to a computer, can transfer the OS to different hardware without breaching the EULA.

At given court ruling, I may breach the EULA.
If a OEM software can be sold, then I can transfer the software myself too.

In addition from a eula.txt: EULAID:XPSP2_RM.0_PRO_OEM_DE

1.2 Übertragung. Diese Lizenz darf nicht geteilt,
auf mehrere Computer übertragen oder auf mehreren
Computern gleichzeitig verwendet werden. Die SOFTWARE
darf nur auf einem einzelnen COMPUTER, wie in diesem
EULA dargelegt, verwendet werden. Sie sind berechtigt,
alle Ihre Rechte aus diesem EULA dauerhaft zu übertragen,
vorausgesetzt, Sie behalten keine Kopien der SOFTWARE
zurück. Sofern die SOFTWARE ein Update ist, muss jede
Übertragung auch alle früheren Versionen der SOFTWARE
umfassen. Diese Übertragung muss außerdem das
Echtheitszertifikat-Etikett umfassen. Die Übertragung darf
nicht als indirekte Übertragung, beispielsweise als
Kommission, erfolgen. Vor der Übertragung muss sich der
Endbenutzer, der die Software erhält, mit allen
Bestimmungen des EULAs einverstanden erklären.

A german XP OEM EULA dosn't emphasis the hardware bundle.
Read "einzelnen COMPUTER": one computer, can be a different one.
Contrary a "einziger COMPUTER" : a single unique computer
There is no court ruling to clarify this part.
In my opinion, a german XP OEM EULA allows the software transfer to another hardware.

To enhance the confusion:
I'm free to ignore the EULA completely.
If I buy a hardware-software package from a dealer, I make a contract with the dealer.
Part of this contract are common local laws.
The dealer didn't emphasise the EULA, hence I don't know the EULA at this point.
A manufacturer can't enforce a EULA later.
http://www.heise.de/...elt-290296.html

[Wonko the Sane]

At given court ruling, I may breach the EULA.
If a OEM software can be sold, then I can transfer the software myself too.

Very good , opinions are nice (but they are not facts/rulings).

Also in my opinion (and under Italian Law) the EULA is a null contract for THREE reasons:

• the seller (Microsoft or the OEM system Builder) did NOT express "clearly enough" (or if you prefer with the due diligence) the clauses of the contract (end users or "customers" are very well protected under Italian Law against unclear or only not clearly explained contracts/agreements and similar)
  
• the contract is NOT signed (physically or digitally or equivalent)
  
• the Civil Code protects everyone against any Contract pre-printed (or equivalent), imposing that clauses that affect substantially the nature of the transaction must be expressly signed again for confirmation

Art. 1341:
http://www.leggeonli...ile/art1341.php
Which is actually not that bad translated by google:
http://translate.goo...ile/art1341.php

bit still it is a (personal) opinion, and nothing more.

That MS had the intention of forbidding the transfer of the bundled software in the original English EULA is on the other hand an undeniable fact.

It is possible that either something has been "lost in translation" to German (or the License is/was intentionally changed) as it is also seemingly evident how the whole sentences (or equivalent):

• as a single integrated product
  
• If the SOFTWARE is not accompanied by HARDWARE, you may not use the SOFTWARE.

are entirely missing in the German text.

For the record, the Italian version:
http://download.micr...0db002054f5.pdf

Software come Componente del Computer - Trasferimento. QUESTA LICENZA NON POTRÁ ESSERE
CONDIVISA, TRASFERITA O UTILIZZATA CONTEMPORANEAMENTE SU COMPUTER DIVERSI. Il
SOFTWARE viene concesso in licenza con l’HARDWARE come un singolo prodotto integrato e potrà essere
utilizzato esclusivamente con l’HARDWARE. Se il SOFTWARE non è accompagnato da un nuovo HARDWARE,
l’utente non potrà utilizzare il SOFTWARE. L’utente potrà trasferire definitivamente tutti i diritti concessi dal presente
Contratto solamente come parte di una vendita permanente o di un trasferimento dell’HARDWARE, a condizione che
non ne trattenga alcuna copia, che trasferisca tutto il SOFTWARE (comprese tutte le parti componenti, i supporti di
memorizzazione e il materiale stampato, qualsiasi aggiornamento, il presente Contratto e il Certificato di Autenticità), e
che il cessionario accetti le condizioni del presente Contratto.

is very similar to the original English one.

In any case there is a noticeable difference between the German OEM and the PRO version:
http://download.micr...b19006597b5.pdf

I seem I cannot find the MS pdf source of the EULAID:XPSP2_RM.0_PRO_OEM_DE, it's strange.

The Dutch version has also a very similar approach to English and Italian:

1.2 SOFTWARE als Component van de COMPUTER - Overdracht. Deze licentie
mag niet worden gedeeld en mag niet worden overgedragen naar of gelijktijdig worden gebruikt
op verschillende computers. De SOFTWARE is samen met de COMPUTER als één geïntegreerd
product voorzien van een licentie en mag uitsluitend met de COMPUTER worden gebruikt.
Indien de SOFTWARE niet bij HARDWARE hoort, mag u de SOFTWARE niet gebruiken. U mag
al uw rechten die voortvloeien uit deze Overeenkomst uitsluitend als onderdeel van een
permanente verkoop of overdracht van de COMPUTER overdragen, mits u geen exemplaar van
de SOFTWARE behoudt. Indien de SOFTWARE een upgrade is, moet elke overdracht tevens alle
vorige versies van de SOFTWARE omvatten. Deze overdracht moet ook het label van het
Certificaat van Authenticiteit omvatten. De overdracht mag niet indirect plaatsvinden, bij wijze
van consignatie. Vóór de overdracht dient de eindgebruiker die de overgedragen Software in
ontvangst neemt in te stemmen met alle bepalingen in de Overeenkomst.

AND the EULAID:WX.2_HOM_OSB_DE (seemingly the Home version OSB, possibly meaning something in German like O-whatever-System-Bilder ):
http://download.micr...b2e4394f390.pdf
Is also strangely similar:

Software als Komponente des Computers – Übertragung. DIESE LIZENZ DARF NICHT GETEILT ODER AUF
MEHREREN COMPUTERN GLEICHZEITIG VERWENDET WERDEN. Die SOFTWARE darf nur auf einem
einzelnen Computer, wie in diesem EULA ausgeführt, verwendet werden. Wenn Ihnen die SOFTWARE nicht
zusammen mit neuer HARDWARE zur Verfügung gestellt wird, sind Sie nicht berechtigt, die SOFTWARE zu
verwenden. Sie sind berechtigt, alle Ihre Rechte aus diesem EULA dauerhaft zu übertragen, vorausgesetzt, Sie behalten
keine Kopien zurück, Sie übertragen die vollständige SOFTWARE (einschließlich aller Komponenten, der Medien
und der gedruckten Materialien, aller Updates, dieses EULAs und des Certificates of Authenticity (Echtheitszertifikat))
und die/der Empfänger/in stimmt den Bestimmungen dieses EULAs zu. Sofern die SOFTWARE ein Update ist, muss
jede Übertragung auch alle früheren Versionen der SOFTWARE umfassen.

As another example (for Holmes.Sherlock) of the concept that local Law always prevail over contracts, we can take as an example warranties.
In the EU all goods are sold to the "end user" or "consumer" with TWO year of Warranty, NO matter what the producer writes in it's documentation or "contract" or "agreement".
http://ec.europa.eu/...services_en.htm


Wonko

P.S.: Found (through the Italian MS wizard ) the German License for PRO (pre-installed by the maker of the computer)
http://download.micr...07dd77aee36.pdf
an it is also EULAID:WX.2_PRO_OSB_DE

[cdob]

It is possible that either something has been "lost in translation" to German (or the License is/was intentionally changed)

There is a historical change:

A NT4 EULA from 1996, remember that's before Bundesgerichtshof OEM ruling.

Einzelner COMPUTER. Das SOFTWAREPRODUKT ist in
Verbindung mit der HARDWARE als integriertes Produkt
lizenziert. Sie sind nur berechtigt, das SOFTWAREPRODUKT
zusammen mit der HARDWARE, wie in diesem EULA festgelegt,
zu verwenden.

oEM Workstation OS - DE Rev 6/19/96 Filename: Ger-wks.doc

The NT4 EULA bundles software to the hardware.

Most likely the XP hardware bundle was removed because of the court ruling from 2000.
The verdict from 2011 was about a specific case to clarify OEM selling circumstances.
Read: the manufacturer accepts Windows OEM selling in general since 2000.

[Wonko the Sane]

There is a historical change:

A NT4 EULA from 1996, remember that's before Bundesgerichtshof OEM ruling.The NT4 EULA bundles software to the hardware.

Most likely the XP hardware bundle was removed because of the court ruling from 2000.
The verdict from 2011 was about a specific case to clarify OEM selling circumstances.
Read: the manufacturer accepts Windows OEM selling in general since 2000.

Maybe , still the OEM_DE are not found, whilst the "current" OSB_DE are and they contain:

Software als Komponente des Computers

and

Wenn Ihnen die SOFTWARE nicht zusammen mit neuer HARDWARE zur Verfügung gestellt wird, sind Sie nicht berechtigt, die SOFTWARE zu verwenden.

which seems to me like maybe you can sell one of these licenses, but you cannot buy it without the accompanying hardware (or you can buy it, but cannot use it) .

It is also well possible that in the meantime n slightly different licenses have been issued .


Wonko

[cdob]

EULAID:WX.2_PRO_OSB_DE

Maybe , still the OEM_DE are not found, whilst the "current" OSB_DE are and they contain:

The OSB_DE eula.txt was part of Windows XP OEM gold, back from 2001.
The hardware bundle was manufacturer opinion back then.

The OEM_DE eula.txt was part of Windows XP OEM SP2, back from 2004.
The hardware bundle part was removed in the meantime.

[Wonko the Sane]

Yep, as said:

It is also well possible that in the meantime n slightly different licenses have been issued .

The "OSB" version seems like the "current" one, retrievable from MS, which helps adding to the confusion.


Wonko

[MedEvil]

Wenn Ihnen die SOFTWARE nicht zusammen mit neuer HARDWARE zur Verfügung gestellt wird, sind Sie nicht berechtigt, die SOFTWARE zu verwenden.

which seems to me like maybe you can sell one of these licenses, but you cannot buy it without the accompanying hardware (or you can buy it, but cannot use it) .

I bought my OEM version together with a keychain.
So i can legally move my Windows from computer to computer, without problem!!!

btw. While on the topic. My OEM version came on a CDVD, which, i'm pretty sure, does qualify as hardware too.

[steve6375]

When you activate Win8 with a valid product key, a hardware snapshot is recorded and registered on the MS database and an activation key is sent back to activate Win8. If you re-install Win8 and try to re-activate with the same product key, a new hardware snapshot is sent to the MS servers and compared with the previous hardware signature - if it is not close enough (e.g. UUID does not match or maybe MAC address) then it won't activate. So I would be interested to see what happens if you try to use the same product key on another win8 system...

[cdob]

So I would be interested to see what happens if you try to use the same product key on another win8 system...

Most likely it's the same as in XP, Vista and Windows 7.
In doubt there is phone activation. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950929
At relating local laws a OEM transfer is activated by a manufacturers representative.

[steve6375]

If you ring MS with an OEM Product Key they will tell you to contact the manufacturer.
OEM licences/keys cannot be transferred to any other system. You can't even upgrade the motherboard in an OEM system.

[ambralivio]

If you ring MS with an OEM Product Key they will tell you to contact the manufacturer.
OEM licences/keys cannot be transferred to any other system. You can't even upgrade the motherboard in an OEM system.

you are right, but yours is the old/previous interpretation of Microsoft license, valid up to Windows 7.

Now, just after Windows 8, Microsoft has completely overhauled a new licence agreement, introducing the so-called Personal Use License for System Builder, just considered within the OEM terms. please, consider this only valid for Windows 8 and not for the previous (legacy) versions.

See the Ed Bott's report here and an example for the PRO edition from Microsoft site here.

[MedEvil]

From the link above.

Read this new nonsense:

RETAIL UPGRADE

We do not sell our software or your copy of it – we only license it. Under our license, we grant you the right to install and run that one copy on one computer (the licensed computer), for use by one person at a time,

So better not think of running any kind of server on a retail Win8, like for instance Teamviewer.

Do the people, who write this nonsense, have even ever seen a computer?