Windows Licensing for Hobbyists

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:14

This means a lot of revising of the Sticky

This has been recently added to the OEM partner channel:

Edit: n ow as a PDF attached.

If you have access to the partner channel then here's the link: http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=563841

So this effectively means that OEM software is not for use by the vast majority of users here

*Awaits MS bashing*

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:32

Paulus said:
i cant see how they expect you to police this

They probably won't. Most people won't care, but for people like me who do, it just adds complexity I don't need.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:51

clv101 said:
If MS want to smooth the uptake of Windows 7 they should follow Apple's example. One product, one price, end of. (And a server version).

It's different for Apple though as they will always recoup costs from their overpriced hardware.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 10:53

Vertigo1 said:
What's the situation going to be with existing OEM copies installed by self-build users when it comes to upgrades? Will buying an upgrade copy of Windows 7 to apply over these OEM licences be valid or will we be required to start again with full retail? I have three machines here with kosher OEM Vista licences on them and there's no way in hell I'm paying around £400 to upgrade them all to Windows 7!

I'm not sure tbh, but you could just say that you sold it to a family member who subsequently sold it back to you after an upgrade.

This is silly IMO.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 11:03

Paulus said:
as far as i read it, it has always been the way and MS is just clarifying it....

It's different to what I've been told by the MS Licensing team historically though. :mad:

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 11:20

Bledd, I agree. I also think their pricing structure is a bit off. With retail sales being a small part of their revenue, surely they could reduce the price a little? It'll increase sales if anything.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 11:35

Vertigo1 said:
Well it's always been the case that OEM software was only legitimately available for use by System Builders, it's just the definition of what constitutes a System Builder that's in question.

Historically it's been the case that self-builders could legitimately call themselves System Builders and thus use OEM software but now MS are claiming they can't call themselves that and never could.

No, that's not what has changed. The change is whether the transfer to a third party through being sold was an absolute requirement or not.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 12:00

stoofa said:
This will change next to nothing.

I disagree, I don't fall into any of your catagories (although I don't use OEM licences in that way, I would have had I not had MSDN:AA licences).

There are people who want to be legal and be an ethusiast.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 12:01

eXor said:
Please try and make me understand why you care.

Simple, why buy a licence you are going to void and render worthless? Why not pirate if you aren't going to follow the rules?

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 12:05

Mattf121 said:
So what you are saying, Stoofa is if you buy (paid for) an OEM copy and use it on the same pc, but change your motherboard, then call up MS and ask to activate, they allow it and you aren't using the OS on another computer that you are just as illegal as someone who torrented a cracked version, have never activated and got away with not paying a penny-?

Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. And he's right.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 12:28

platypus said:
It seems a strange move to me. They must realise that they make a significant amount of sales from hobbyists, and that in turn these people simply won't buy retail.

I think they think that hobbyist will pay for retail. I'm not sure they know how many hobbyists use the SB OEM licensing channel.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 12:37

anewhope said:
Why would a hobbiest want to pay full price for what is essentially support from Microsoft

The difference between OEM and retail is a lot more then support.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 12:45

Paulus said:
yeh, you get a box too...

joking aside, and seriously, what are the other differences? (from an end user perspective)

It's all in the sticky, but being able to change mobo and stay legal is probably the key difference (whcih means activation is easier)

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 14:17

Paulus said:
so for people who wait to upgrade their whole pc in one go and include a new oem OS in their next purchase, this has little value

which brings it back to just having support from MS

And the point of this thread is that including a new OEM for a mobo upgrade isn't allowed.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 14:18

RobH said:
Slightly OT but what is the license for MSDN:AA? I am always changing OS versions on my various machiens or using them inside VM's for various research.

You're probably fine. You generally have one concurrent licence for testing conditions.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 14:27

MikeHunt79 said:
I'm kinda glad I stuck with XP now... Still, I'll be interested to see how Window 7 is priced.

Just to make this clear. This affects all OEM licences including XP.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 16:47

CaptainCrash said:
Burnsy, if you have access to the OEM channel, could you check out the Simplified OEM Licencing page and see if it's still up?

Nope, gives me a 404.

CaptainCrash said:
"OEM system builder software packs are intended for PC and server manufacturers or assemblers ONLY. They are not intended for distribution to end users. Unless the end user is actually assembling his/her own PC, in which case, that end user is considered a system builder as well."

I know, hence why I was surprised that they changed their minds. I think the article I quoted in the first post has been around for a bit but I've only recently noticed it on the OEM Licensing homepage.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jan 2009 at 19:10

dayloon said:
I love your MS licensing threads. What would you do if you found the girl of your dreams was using an illegal copy of windows ? Would that be the end of the relationship ?

I'd buy her a Genuine Advantage legalization pack for her birthday

Burnsy2023 · 29 Jan 2009 at 10:38

mmj_uk said:
infact I still can't seem to find DX10 for my legally purchased copy of XP that I'd like to get my money's-worth from perhaps you can help?

That's a stupid comment.

Mattus said:
Getting a pirate version of Windows that passes activation is easy. If you're fairly in-the-know, you'd buy a legitimate Windows license in order to be morally in the right rather than anything else. I think most people are just going to be satisfied that they've paid for their software, and aren't gonna be too bothered about a fairly obscure licensing term.

I'm just one of these people who don't like to do things half-arsed.

Burnsy2023 · 29 Jan 2009 at 10:56

Strife212 said:
A software licence has never stood up in a single court case anyway.

You're wrong there.

Strife212 said:
And in fact if MS activate it even they can't tell that you are breaking the license terms.

And again. :rolleyes:

Strife212 said:
But it activates, and runs 100%; I don't see how that is half assed.

Because you're not properly licensed?