Re: [LUG] Licences preventing the user from using other OSes?

[Jon Lawrence <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
I believe it is also a legal requirement for an item to be fit for purpose.
If I bought a laptop, then I'm damn sure windoze wouldn't be fit for the 
purpose I would intend to use the laptop for.

Jon

On Friday 03 May 2002 00:11 am, you wrote:
> anyone think of a better reason for building your own system and buying
> your own software????
>
>
>
> 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

--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the
message body to unsubscribe.