The "sanctity of contracts" in common law countries, which has a
constitutional sanction in the US, was mentioned with respect to the right
of
a given user to run its copy of Windows in a virtual rather than real
machine,
irrespective of a clause aiming at forbidding him to do
so.
Now, further food for thought in this respect has brought by a recent
article
published by The Register, where the following can be read:
'If a
PC shipped with Windows preinstalled, can you remove the OS and
install
Linux instead? Well, no, according to Microsoft. A somewhat obscure
Microsoft site aimed at helping schools deal with donated computers
flatly
states: "It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating
systems remain
with a machine for the life of the machine."'
If I
understand the view above of the doctrine of the "sanctity of contracts",
such a clause would be valid even when contained in the EULA of a given
OS. "By purchasing this licence" or "By making use of this product, the
user
undertakes not to remove in any case, once installed, the OS from the PC
to which it is applied. Furthermore, the user shall not make use of any
other
OS on any hardware belonging to, or used by, himself".
What
about that?
[PWBunce] this came from an italian
lawyer
