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

["Neil Stone" <Neil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Drop a load of exploding penguines on the lot of them....

good point about the boot loader tho !!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
> Of psutton
> Sent: 29 April 2002 19:48
> To: list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [LUG] Licences preventing the user from using other OSes?
>
>
> so If I dual boot the system with very LIttle for windows, and
> the rest for
> Linux,  don't add windows to my boot manager I can run LInux, and
> never touch
> windows,  I am not breaking their laws as I my copy of windows is
> still with
> the system.
>
> Out of interest is this a legal requirement in every couhtry this
> dictator
> thinks he owns, Here is a real warning the more MS bully the
> other countries
> and the US government to do the same,  the more events like Sept 11 th we
> will have,  until some terror group have the sense to bomb a large campus
> just north of redmond, WA, USA,.  with the message you have no legal
> duristiction in our country,  neither does your government so
> mind your own
> business there is no legal requirement to use Microsoft windows,
> and while
> we respect copyright,  we also respect democracy and freedom of
> choice, so
> get lost.   Rather than free software being to blame for funding
> terror,  and
> piracy,  it's peoples resentment at being told what to do that
> causes terror,
>  the next terror group to hit USA will make sure that their
> action makes Sept
> 11 look like a cheap fireworks display.  and keep on doing so
> until the US
> backs down and lets countries run the software they want.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On Thursday 02 May 2002 23:11, 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.


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