Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Guide to Accepting Donated PCs
An anonymous reader links us to Microsoft's Guide to Accepting Donated Computers
for Your School, which contains humorous statements such as
"If a company or individual donates a machine to your school, it must be donated with the operating system that was installed on the PC. "
It's just an amusing little read that basically amounts to keeping the license
with the PC. Also neglects to mention the Naked PC discussed in this slashdot story.
I can understand their point -- that specific PC is licensed with that specific copy of Windows. How many schools will read this and treat it as gospel, however? Hopefully, not many. As a gov't agency, our PC's are completely wiped prior to donation -- it is our policy. Keeping Win in the box does teach kids how to reboot, though...
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
No, but the licence agreement with the copy of Windows that was installed on the PC almost certainly specifies that it can only be used with that PC.
What MS is saying is that it is illegal to buy a PC with, say, Windows 2000 pre-installed, then later give the PC away but keep the copy of Windows 2000. That would be in violation of the terms of the licence.
Now, personally I feel that that's a crock, but that's a discussion for another thread...
they are not requiring them to KEEP the OS, they are requiring that if you have windows 95 installed on it, and you donate the machine, you are donating your copy of windows 95 and can't use it anymore.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Keeping the OS with the machine is the same thing as keeping those tags matresses. They are required to be on there if you are a company that sells matresses, but once an individual buys the matress, they can do whatever they like to the tag. It's their property at that point.
If they then give away or donate the matress, the lack of the tag really doesn't matter.
I'm really curious what law they are referring to when they saw "legal requirement". If they're going to say stuff like that, I'd like to see where it was written. Anyone can just say that something is "legally required". I can say it's "legally required" to mod all my posts up. That don't make it true, tho.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
I've done work for about half a dozen schools (junior highs and high schools) that have quite substantial commitments to computers in the classroom.
;-)
In my experience, whenever donated computers arrive, that's all that arrives. I've never seen a computer arrive with the documentation that probably accompanied it when it was purchased by the donating company. All you get is the computer and associated peripherals if you're lucky (often they forget to send mice).
At one school, they have about 120 donated PCs, and I think there is maybe half a dozen valid Windows licenses in the whole place. Of course, there are numerous burned copies too, which makes imaging these machines really easy (thank you Norton Ghost).
I find it rather surprising that some enterprising person/persons haven't started to produce an educational Linux distribution... just pile on a lot of idiot proofing
I also found this statement hung in the air like a brick. It cannot be a legal requirement to include the "pre-installed" OS with the computer. Since, like a lot of people here, the first I do with a new box is wipe it and configure it the way I want it.
When donating a box, I would also wipe it beforehand, and make sure that all the OS materials (backup CD's, documentation, etc.) went with it. It's really up to the receiving institution to do something with it.
What this seems to suggest is that it's bound by law that you cannot modify a PC from its factory state.
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
What MS is saying is that it is illegal to buy a PC with, say, Windows 2000 pre-installed, then later give the PC away but keep the copy of Windows 2000.
No. That is not what they are saying. They are saying that you must include the OS that was originally installed on the machine, per this statement on the page: make sure that the hardware donation includes the original operating system software.... it is a legal requirement.
This is a gross overstatement and misleading. If there is a legal burden when selling a computer, it applies to the seller, not the buyer. The buyer has NO idea what was originally on the computer and cannot be expected to know. The buyer never saw the original agreement, let alone clicked on the Accept button. In addition, if the original OS is Linux, BSD or other Free OS, there is no such agreement.
You can read your own motives into this.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine. If a company or individual donates a machine to your school, it must be donated with the operating system that was installed on the PC.
Which law states this? A state law? Federal law? Decree of the UN?
What if I donate PCs that I built myself without an OS "installed"?
A "legal requirement" sounds very much like a scare tactic. If anything, you'd think they'd want the opposite - they'd want a school to get a bunch of PCs, but then REPURCHASE more Windows licenses 'just to be sure', upping MS' sales.
They pretty much get a sale for every PC in the US now anyway. I'd be interested to know what their license sales are per year vs the number of PCs sold that year. I've a hunch Windows license sales may be higher than PC sales.
creation science book
It's a violation by the company who is doing the donating, not by the school.
It is not illegal for the school to accept a PC that no longer has the Windows pre-install on it. I have no idea why MS is writing this for schools. Nothing they say in there has any legal basis. If, on the other hand, they had written it as "a guide on how to donate a PC that originally included an OEM copy of Windows" and give it out to corporations, then what they're saying makes a bit more sense (aside from the argument over whether the OEM EULA makes any sense).
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
The Microsoft statement is that the preinstalled OS must remain with the machine throughout its lifetime. This is not true.
It is true that the OEM copy of the OS that came with the new machine is only licensed for use on that machine. Therefore, if someone donates you the machine, but not the OS, then you can't use the OS and neither can they. There is no requirement that the OS stay with the machine, though.
Microsoft is making false claims here in their efforts to simplify the matter.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Yes, the license agreement of OEM software typically ties it to the hardware it was sold with. In other words, if you buy a PC with Windows XP installed on it, the license says that the copy of Windows XP can only be used on that PC (and the recovery discs tend to "enforce" that too).
This "guide" reverses the statement to say that the hardware is tied to the software. It says that schools should not (the baseless legal threats turn that into a "can not") accept donated computer hardware unless it includes the origial software with accompanying media and documentation.
That is pure shit.
Microsoft does have a program that gives a school a site-license for software upgrades, provided that the systems that they are installed on have a license for the original software. In other words, if the hardware has a license for Windows 98, the school can install their site-licensed Windows 2000 upgrade on it. If the system does not have an existing license, the school can not.
This is pure Microsoft FUD. I actually laughed when I read it the first time. Then I realized that some educator somewhere will read this and actually believe it and get rid of donated computers because of this. Microsoft is not trying to be charitable here by helping to prevent schools from getting into legal trouble. They're trying to take used computers out of schools so that the schools are forced to buy new ones and new Microsoft software licesnes.
but the difference is that if you strip a computer of its preinstalled M$OS, and instead install FreeBSD, then microsoft HAVE some ability to restrict you (the giver) from installing this spare OS on another computer, but they have absolutely NO ability to restrict the recipient from accepting the cleansed computer.
The licence doesn't have to stay with the computer, but it can't be used with any other computers. BIG difference.
Basically, microsoft are completely misrepresenting the burden of copyright verification, hoping (with reason) that educators will be too spineless to question the webpage.
I have a computer with a pre-installed version of Windows. It's a package deal. This Is Significant And Important (TM). I donate the PC to a school. The Windows license must accompany it.
...
I don't know if that is so under US-Law, but in germany software can (still) be "debundled" from a PC, so you can sell your OEM-Windows independent of the computer. All the EULA-stuff simply doesn't apply, since the customer makes his contract when he buys the software, and not when he opens some shrinkwrapped package. Thus the software is covered by basic copyrights (which does well enough IMHO) but no more. AFAIR there was even a court ruling for this, basically saying, that Microsoft has no say in how a software is sold on, once it's sold. There was even a case of an assembler buying used licenses.
Note that the case isn't so easy if you have to fiddle with copyright-protections (like those BIOS-locked HD-recovery w/o proper windowsmedia), but if you have a full windows install disk it shouldn't be a (legal) problem. Another thing is, that Microsoft doesn't really "license" their software here, since then they'd have to guarantee that it works properly (and Microsoft wouldn't want that). I don't know if similar law applies in the US, but then they could always lock the software to the PC and make it a DMCA-case
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
This is just not true. Not in any way. Right of first sale says I can do ANYTHING i damn well please with a physical item I purchased. If I want to take the computer apart and sell each individual circuit, I can. That includes not including origional license to the OS that came with it.
Lets think about what a "license" is. A license gives the licensee the right to copy the software. Simple, eh. There are two things to note here. If the owner NEVER copies the software, they have never been bound to a license terms (in theory anyhow). The ONLY time a user copies the software is on the OS install. If the user, as per the License Agreement, decides that they no longer accept the license agreement, it is null and void.
Meaning quite simply, there is no necissity for me to ship my PC with the original software, as per the right of first sale. Even if somehow the License "forces" the individual to transfer the license, the person to receives the hardware without the license has no broken no law.
Burn Hollywood Burn
In West Virginia, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation just handed the state department of education 16 million dollars.
In return, the state board of ed sold out the public schools.
They handed down a memo saying that all students *must* take part in a questionaire administered by the teachers during school time. One teacher I know estimated that it would take 20 minutes per student, given that there are issues with reading ability at the age of the students being given the test.
This questionaire:
* Was given online. Teachers were required to have Internet Explorer (not "a browser", Internet Explorer) installed on all school computers used in this. Cute way for a monopolist to propogate their products.
* Involved asking students the number and type of products such as camcorders and computers they have at home. Many parents are not willing to give out this information, so building profiles of families by asking adults doesn't work very well. However, when students, children, are required to take an questionare like this by a teacher, they don't have much of a choice, though I suppose they could lie if their parents have taught them the importance of privacy. Microsoft was given the go-ahead to repeat this study two and four years from this point in time. All results get sent to Microsoft.
* Was given during school time. Taxpayers spend enormous amounts of money to pay for *children to be educated*. State laws are put in place to require students to be in school *to be educated*. These resources are supposed to go to education, not to (in my opinion, rather invasive) Microsoft marketing studies.
* Finally, MS made another coup for those 16 million dollars -- they were given a right to appoint a consultant to conduct overviews and approve or deny technology education curriculum. Now, it's possible that this consultant is a totally objective person who really *will* choose Linux or the Mac OS over Windows, or competing office/database products over MS's offerings if those things are better choices in a given scenerio. However, I rather doubt it. This is traditionally a large Apple market, but in one fell swoop, MS cut the legs out from Apple throughout the entire state.
I'm wondering whether this is just my state, or whether this is happening elsewhere. Anyone else hear about similar things in their own states? I could be a new Microsoft offensive against Apple, or just something that's been going on for a while, but I feel more than a little uncomfortable with it, and I doubt any letters I write are going to quite measure up to 16 million dollars in terms of legislators' decisions.
May we never see th
Q. How does the PC owner transfer their license rights for the operating system?
Sinple, just sell the computer. You have the right, under Copyright law, of first sale. If the license says otherwise, the license is wrong. Unless the copyright holder has a signed contract with your signature on it, you have not relinquished the rights that the laws guarantees you.
Too many software companies are preying on the public's ignorance of the law. And I'm not talking about just Microsoft. I'm talking about Sun, IBM, HP, Adobe, Apple, and even several Open Source companies and foundations. The public doesn't know anything, so when someone comes along and pretends to be an expert, they are believed, even if they are telling the biggest pack of lies since Hitler talked with Chamberlain.
You cannot forfeit your rights just because you use software you legally own, or because you read some words on an install screen, or because you tore open some mylar wrap, or even because you clicked a button that says "yes".
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
These provisions in a EULA are invalid..at least in California..
It is clear that the provisions for bundled software would also apply to bundling software with hardware...
Here is some background..
http://lwn.net/2001/1108/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23073.html
http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/ bb61c530eab0911c882567cf005ac6f9/574aa79ff51802118 8256aed006ea2dc/$FILE/CV00-04161DDP.pdf
see LWN text below-
Hope that helps!
-Chris
______cut here________
License agreements and first sale doctrine.
Below the radar of much of the free software community, another interesting case was coming to a conclusion in U.S. District Court in California. In this case, our old buddy Adobe Software was pushing for an injunction against SoftMan Systems. Softman, it seems, has been buying Adobe software collections, splitting them into their component parts, and selling those parts independently. Adobe's claim is that this reselling activity violates the end-user license agreement (EULA) covering the program, and is thus a copyright violation.
The court disagreed (this ruling, too, is available in PDF format - [longish URL above] -). Essentially, the court has said that the EULA does not apply to SoftMan, for a couple of interesting reasons. One is that SoftMan never agreed to the EULA, and is thus not bound by its terms:
In the instant case, the Court finds that there is only assent on the part of the consumer, if at all, when the consumer loads the Adobe program and begins the installation process. It is undisputed that SoftMan has never attempted to load the software that it sells. Consequently, the Court finds that SoftMan is not subject to the Adobe EULA.
The ruling also casts doubt on whether agreeing to a click-through license can truly be binding to the consumer.
The other aspect of the court's ruling is that the software was sold - not licensed - to SoftMan:
The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license.
Since this transaction is a sale, the first sale doctrine applies:
In short, the terms of the Adobe EULA at issue prohibit licensees from transferring or assigning any individual Adobe product that was originally distributed as part of a Collection unless it is transferred with all the software in the original Collection. This license provision conflicts with the first sale doctrine in copyright law, which gives the owner of a particular copy of a copyrighted work the right to dispose of that copy without the permission of the copyright owner.
These conclusions are interesting, in that they have the potential to tilt the interpretation copyright law a little toward the rights of users of copyrighted material. For example:
Both DVD cases depend, partly, on the claim that a commercial DVD package was "improperly" reverse engineered. It is the software's EULA, however, that prohibits that reverse engineering. If the code is reverse engineered without installing it and agreeing to the EULA (by, say, disassembling it on a Linux system), the EULA does not apply. The Bunner case, in particular, could be affected by this ruling.
Reselling that unwanted Windows installation on your new computer should be legal.
Electronic books, too, are subject to first sale; it should be possible to resell them.
The ruling gives an out to software companies that wish to continue to "license" rather than sell a copy of their software. The transaction is considered a sale when it involves a single payment and use of the software for an unlimited time. Thus, the "rent-a-program" schemes being proposed by many are untouched.
This affirmation of the first sale doctrine is a welcome strengthening of the rights of consumers of copyrighted material. Here is an interesting scenario, though: suppose an unethical vendor obtains a copy of a program licensed under the GPL, makes a change, and resells the product under a proprietary license?
Consider, for example, a Linux distribution where the C library has been replaced with a proprietary, value-added package. The vendor could argue that the tweaked copy can be resold under the first sale doctrine. Massive distribution could be made possible by "purchasing" a new copy of the GPL code for each copy sold. We may never see a vendor attempting this approach, but the possibility exists.
The only way in which this requirement could possibly be a legal one is if it is a condition of the licence agreement under which either the PC or the OS (or both) was purchased.
And even so, this clearly isn't a legal requirement. Making such a claim stretches contract law beyond the provisions which can be upheld in court.
Although not a lawyer in this or any previous lifetime, I spent a good many years immersed in contract law (among other things) while employed for the government. There are provisions for reasonable expectations, among other things, and this claim by Microsoft simply doesn't meet them. At most Microsoft could claim (and even this probably wouldn't pass judicial muster) that an OEM version of their OS could only be used with the purchased computer; they could not, under any circumstances, require that the OS go with the computer if subsequently sold or donated. If the OEM/hardware tie were to be ruled legal by the court at some later date then what you'd end up with is a useless copy of the OS as you wouldn't be allowed to install it anywhere after you gave away the old PC - but that's it.
Microsoft doesn't make these absurd claims because they honestly believe they're legal. They make them because they know that it'll take a bucket of money to challenge them on it, money school districts (who're being audited and would have to provide the copy of the OS to 'prove' that it's in compliance) aren't willing to pay. Everyone could well be aware that the provision is ludicrous but MS would *still* try to enforce it and the defendent would *still* pay legal fees through the nose to fight it, as well as waste time and manpower. Given that our federal government has rolled over and presented both ass cheeks to Microsoft, it'd be silly for something as local and limited as a school district to make a challenge if MS demanded they buy additional licenses to comply with an audit.
Besides, school districts in many places are strapped for cash and rely on MS 'donations' - with all strings attached - to provide at least some hardware and software. Even if the district won the battle they know they'd never again get anything from Microsoft or any of it's partners. And there's a real fear that Microsoft would find some other way to punish them; they've done it to competitors and (from the district's point of view) there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't find a way to express their vindictiveness with a school district that gave them problems or embarrassed them publicly.
Remember, MS talks about the donator in their guidelines. But it's the audited school districts that'll have to come up with the 'proof' that the machine is in compliance, even if the compliance is a crock - and if the machine is running Linux and you have no copy of the OEM OS, you can bet MS'll throw a fit and blame the district, not the donator. The threat isn't against donations but whoever is receiving the donations.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?