Using Win7 OEM on a new motherboard?

[Essexraptor]

I just do a clean full install if I have a major hardware problem that requires a HDD change for example and activate with the same key as before.

As far as I'm concerned I built the system... therefore I manufactured the system. I'm not defrauding Microsoft or attempting to sell on a OEM version of the OS for monetairy gain. The software stays within my control. Technically a completely different MB is a problem but phone and see.

this is straight from a Microsoft (MSFT CGS)

After replacing the motherboard, please perform the following steps to re-activate Windows 7 by phone.



1. Click Start, type SLUI 4.exe into Search box and press Enter.

2. Select the nearest location and click Next.

3. Call the number provided on the page and use the Confirmation ID provided to re-activate Windows 7.

the sky won't fall on your head tomorrow

Microsoft write air tight EULA's but they are not above commensense if you folllow the guidelines for re-activation

 

[Hotwired]

The Microsoft piracy squad will be kicking in your back door any minute now!

 

[Essexraptor]

The Microsoft piracy squad will be kicking in your back door any minute now!

Probably on the way to the pub!

 

[Xelene]

Technet licenses are for NON-PRODUCTION computers.

I agree, quite the stickler regarding licenses at work. But my home machines aren't production and permanently in some sort of Lab setup.

 

[monkeyspank]

No it's NOT legal

oh gnoes call the police!

It's not illegal.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Awesome, this thread has cleared things up nicely

So if I did the opposite and changed everything except the CPU, motherboard and RAM, how would that sit with Microsoft's EULA?

If agreeing to the EULA and then breaking the EULA isn't illegal, what's the point of the EULA?

 

[CaptainCrash]

Awesome, this thread has cleared things up nicely

So if I did the opposite and changed everything except the CPU, motherboard and RAM, how would that sit with Microsoft's EULA?

If the motherboard stays the same, that doesn't contravene the MS OEM FAQs, so they'd presumably be 100% happy.

If agreeing to the EULA and then breaking the EULA isn't illegal, what's the point of the EULA?

You could theoretically be in breach of contract, and liable to civil proceedings if MS chose to pursue the matter. AFAIK they've never done so in this kind of situation, which suggests to me that they're unsure about the outcome (a test case which went against them would presumably be undesirable), or they simply don't think it's worth spending the resources on a relatively unimportant issue.

Incidentally, as far as I'm aware, there's nothing in the OEM EULA which actually prohibits the end user from swapping out the motherboard - it simply states:

2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS.
a. One Copy per Computer. The software license is permanently assigned to the computer with which the software is distributed. That computer is the “licensed computer.”
b. Licensed Computer. You may use the software on up to two processors on the licensed computer at one time. Unless otherwise provided in these license terms, you may not use the software on any other computer.

As I said above, I'm not at all convinced that FAQs on Microsoft's website can be held as legally binding on the end user - if Microsoft don't spell out *exactly* what you can and can't do in the EULA itself, that's their problem. Having said that, it would be up to a judge to decide what was "reasonable" in the highly unlikely event that things ever got that far.

 

[Lunesta]

Technet licenses are for NON-PRODUCTION computers.
So useless to 99% of people on these forums - including the original poster.
If you have a PC you regularly use then Technet is of no use to you.

Surly gaming/general internet browsing etc is "non-production"?

Back to the point, tbh I think your looking and thinking about this far too much. Your just 1 person...

 

[stoofa]

Surly gaming/general internet browsing etc is "non-production"?

Back to the point, tbh I think your looking and thinking about this far too much. Your just 1 person...

Of course it isn't.
Technet licenses are designed for an IT department that need to test different configurations, network setup's etc.
Playing games and browsing the internet is a computer in production and no longer qualifies for Technet licensing.

I am not looking into this too far.
I am an IT professional and it is my business to know how licenses work.
If you cannot be bothered to learn how licenses work and what you can actually use them for then that is your problem.
But you are wasting your money as you are simply purchasing licenses and then not using them under the agreement they were sold.
So they are no more legal than a downloaded copy off the net.

I maybe "one person' however I happen to be one person who knows what they are talking about.
Sorry I'm not in the 99% of people on these forums who don't.

 

[stoofa]

If the motherboard stays the same, that doesn't contravene the MS OEM FAQs, so they'd presumably be 100% happy.


You could theoretically be in breach of contract, and liable to civil proceedings if MS chose to pursue the matter. AFAIK they've never done so in this kind of situation, which suggests to me that they're unsure about the outcome (a test case which went against them would presumably be undesirable), or they simply don't think it's worth spending the resources on a relatively unimportant issue.

Incidentally, as far as I'm aware, there's nothing in the OEM EULA which actually prohibits the end user from swapping out the motherboard - it simply states:



As I said above, I'm not at all convinced that FAQs on Microsoft's website can be held as legally binding on the end user - if Microsoft don't spell out *exactly* what you can and can't do in the EULA itself, that's their problem. Having said that, it would be up to a judge to decide what was "reasonable" in the highly unlikely event that things ever got that far.

You are not quoting from the OEM license agreement which does state that the OEM license is tied to the original machine on which it is installed.
Other parts of the EULA define "computer".
There is plenty in the OEM license agreement that prohibits it's moving from machine to another.

 

[CaptainCrash]

You are not quoting from the OEM license agreement which does state that the OEM license is tied to the original machine on which it is installed.

I'm not disputing that the OEM licence (license if you use US spelling) is tied to the original computer, I'm querying how that "computer" is defined as per the EULA, which brings us to...

Other parts of the EULA define "computer".

If that's the case, it would indeed clarify the position, could you quote those relevant parts?

There is plenty in the OEM license agreement that prohibits it's moving from machine to another.

Maybe, but not really the issue here... if the EULA does indeed specify that "a computer" equals "a motherboard", then all well and good. If it doesn't, it would be up to MS to convince a court to that effect - if they were successful, then a precedent would be set and we'd have case law which could be used in any future dispute.

 

[Dano]

So they are no more legal than a downloaded copy off the net.

And that has been proven in a court of law has it? If so please link.

 

[CaptainCrash]

And that has been proven in a court of law has it? If so please link.

I think that might be muddying the waters a little - a contract (eg a MS EULA) doesn't necessarily have to be upheld by a court to be considered legally binding. If that were the case, any contract would be effectively meaningless until there had been a dispute resulting in a court ruling, which would be a bit ridiculous given the millions of contracts entered into every single day, from corporate mergers to buying a newspaper from the corner shop.

Of course, if contract terms are unclear or subject to different interpretations, or have the potential to be deemed unfair to one of the parties, that's when such disputes can arise, although it might be the case that neither party feels sufficiently aggrieved to consider mounting a legal challenge.

Other parts of the EULA define "computer".

Still waiting to be enlightened...

The only definition of "a computer" I can find in the Windows 7 HP OEM EULA reads as follows: "A computer is a physical hardware system with an internal storage device capable of running the software. A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate computer." I see no mention anywhere of the term "motherboard", "mainboard" or any other specific component for that matter.

It seems to be Microsoft's *opinion* (published on their website) that a new motherboard represents an entirely new computer, and from a purely technical POV I can see where they're coming from, but that definition is *not* specified in the contract terms, and therefore like any other opinion it carries no legal authority unless and until a judge agrees with it and makes a ruling to that effect.

I may be missing something obvious and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but as things currently stand I can see no evidence that changing or even upgrading a motherboard breaches the terms of the OEM EULA, or is in fact "illegal" in any sense of the word.

 

[Dano]

I think that might be muddying the waters a little - a contract (eg a MS EULA) doesn't necessarily have to be upheld by a court to be considered legally binding. If that were the case, any contract would be effectively meaningless until there had been a dispute resulting in a court ruling, which would be a bit ridiculous given the millions of contracts entered into every single day, from corporate mergers to buying a newspaper from the corner shop.

Of course, if contract terms are unclear or subject to different interpretations, or have the potential to be deemed unfair to one of the parties, that's when such disputes can arise, although it might be the case that neither party feels sufficiently aggrieved to consider mounting a legal challenge.

You've missed the point...

 

[CaptainCrash]

You've missed the point...

Possibly, there are different issues being discussed here and I may have them confused.

If you're saying that there is no adequate definition of "non-production" in respect of the Technet licence, you may be right (I haven't read it). I'd actually agree with stoofa in this case though, and it seems reasonably clear on the face of it that "testing to see if things work" is not the same as "actually using a computer to do stuff", although in practice you could have course do both simultaneously.

edit: here we go, from here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/cc294422.aspx - I assume these are the terms Technet subscribers agree to (or not, as the case may be).

2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS.

a. Single User License. Only one user may install the software on your devices and use the software only to evaluate it, even if you obtained a server license. You may not use the software in a live operating environment, in a staging environment, or with data that has not been backed up. You may not use the evaluation software for software development or in an application development environment.

I guess at a push you might argue that "a live operating environment" is open to interpretation, but personally I'd say the intent was clear (my opinion of course), and I reckon you'd get a dusty response if you chose to take up a court's time questioning it.

I don't think the same applies to the OEM EULA though, where there appears to be *no* definition of what constitutes "a computer" except in the vaguest of terms.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

OK, so ignoring the grey area of "is breaching the terms of the EULA illegal or not", are we saying that (as I previously understood it) Microsoft intends an OEM licence to be tied to the motherboard and only the motherboard?

The reason I ask is that although I'm getting a i5 2500K I fully intend (at this moment in time anyway, thing may change) to get an IvyBridge processor when they are released. With an OEM licence of Win7 would I be able to change the CPU without breaching the EULA?

I also apologise as I didn't mean to start any arguments between anyone!

 

[CaptainCrash]

OK, so ignoring the grey area of "is breaching the terms of the EULA illegal or not", are we saying that (as I previously understood it) Microsoft intends an OEM licence to be tied to the motherboard and only the motherboard?

We're saying (or I am, anyway) that yes, that would appear to be their intent, but they seem to have omitted to make that intent clear in their contract terms, so it doesn't matter from a legal point of view (pending any case law to establish the position one way or the other).

To answer your other question, there's no problem whatsoever about changing a CPU.

BTW, I think we're just having an exchange of views and not really arguing. At least, not yet...

 

[Lunesta]

I am not looking into this too far.
I am an IT professional and it is my business to know how licenses work.
If you cannot be bothered to learn how licenses work and what you can actually use them for then that is your problem.
But you are wasting your money as you are simply purchasing licenses and then not using them under the agreement they were sold.
So they are no more legal than a downloaded copy off the net.

I maybe "one person' however I happen to be one person who knows what they are talking about.
Sorry I'm not in the 99% of people on these forums who don't.

That's fantastic that your an "IT Professional" mate, but you were not the person I was referring to when I said your looking into this too far. I too work in the IT Industry and I'm not disputing the Microsoft's License Agreement however I am saying that the OP is one person and Microsoft will not be tracking him down if he was to change his motherboard and still use his existing license. I know I wouldn't be buying a brand new copy of Windows every time I made a major hardware change.