[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Quoting Neil Winchurst <neil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:51:06 +0000 > Benjamin A'Lee <bma+lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 07:11:48PM +0000, Paul Sutton wrote: >> > >> >> As I understand it, the situation is that *any* machine that can run >> Windows needs to have a Windows licence, even if it doesn't run Windows. >> >> I assume this is because they believe every machine that can run Windows >> will end up running Windows, because who would want to run anything >> else? [1] Therefore, all the machines need a licence so that when the >> "inevitable" happens they're properly licenced so people don't >> accidentally commit piracy (the eighth deadly sin). >> >> [1] Replace "Windows" with "Debian", and you get my actual feelings on >> the matter. :) >> > Well, well. I had my machine built for me by our local computer shop > and I stipulated that I didn't want Windows, so they reduced the price > by about £70 (as they didn't install Windows) and I have never paid for > any licence of any sort. Why should I, since I have only ever had Linux > running on it? > > But. obviously it *could* run Windows if I was ever stupid enough to > install it. So are we (the people who built my machine and I) > technically criminals? > > Neil Winchurst > Wasn't Paul talking about the stupid licensing that schools are locked into? Microsoft keep releasing propaganda to system builders registered with them saying that selling a PC without an operating system is wrong as it's naked and a pirate copy of Windows could be installed on them. Really I think the OFT need to put their foot down and say that the people should get a choice. Rob -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html