Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue_librarian
That's what Microsoft would like you to believe. Germany's Federal High Court of Justice has ruled (back in 2000, I think) that such bundling stipulations are null and void.
Obviously you can't have your cake (sell your copy) and eat it (install on a new machine), too, but transferring that license to a new computer and selling the hardware sans OS is as legal as keeping the computer and installing a new OS on it (and, yes, sell the old one).
|
Exactly what jurisdictions make (or don't make) of specific licence stipulations is interesting, but not the entire point. What is more interesting is trying to understand what it is that someone like Microsoft "wants" to be able to do, and licences are one such indicator. This is more interesting because it can help you understand what may happen in the future, if they fail to get the legal support they want, and the fail to get cooperation from people that have otherwise agreed to such licences (yes, yes, we've been there), then they will continue to search for new ways.
Apple have had reasonable success keeping their operating system tied to the hardware even with the move to x86 (I dare say there are methods out there to circumvent it), which means that things like trying to run virtual Mac machines under Windows hosts cannot be legitimately done (if I understand correctly). The slow move away from the generic hardware (that gave Microsoft it's boost into people's homes) to proprietary hardware (that can effectively force users to only interface via specific services) seems to be working quite well. The move from local applications to cloud applications is another way that business is gradually finding ways to take control and choice away from the user. But people are flocking to these new technologies and the licences they are blithely ignoring now are finding alternative ways to exist.