Slashdot Mirror
Sell Your Computers, Keep Paying MS For Licenses
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft Licensing 6.0 requires a company to pay up on software maintenance when the computers that are covered under the license are sold off. Here's the kicker though: MS is no longer obligated to provide maintenance even though the contract is paid up! Read the Infoworld article."
No, you got a discount from the retail cost of ME for the OEM copy that came bundled with your laptop. The OEM license is limited and for that computer and that computer only.
If you pay full retail for a boxed copy, you can use it as long as you want, so long as you only use it on one machine at a time.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
If I sign a 4 year maintanaince contract with Pedros lawn care, I have to keep paying even if I move and the new owners dont want them running around the yard spraying pesticide.
That's a rather poor analogy. Perhaps this would be more accurate:
- Pedro demands the contract be paid in full prior to moving.
- Pedro then refuses to care for the lawn even though the new owners want the service.
- The new owners are forced to buy their own lawn care contract.
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
We are under EA (enterprise agreement) version 6 here at my company and this is how it works. Once a year you tell MS how many computers are using what software products. This only happens once per year. Yes, if you cut the number of machines in half you won't see an immediate savings until the next time you give MS your numbers.
However, if you end up doubling your computers you come out ahead: you basically get free use of the software until you update your numbers with MS.
This also means you could get free use of software if you only used it for part of a year. For example, if you give MS numbers each January, you could install extra stuff in February, remove it in December, and MS would never have to know you used it.
The EA does end up saving money if you were going to upgrade all the time anyway, or perhaps only skip one version. If you tend to skip two or more versions, the EA would most likely cost you more money.
yes, that is the way it works. Activation keeps you from running it on more than one PC at a time, but you can use it on other PCs when you trash/upgrade the old one. I gave a boxed XP Pro to a friend and he's reactivated the same copy at least 5 times in the last 14 months due to upgrades/replacements/giving away the POS it was originally on, etc.
OEM versions only allow a single install on a single machine, which is why they are so much cheaper.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
Essentially, Microsoft are saying "We're going to sell you a three-year non-transferrable support and upgrade contract." Nothing wrong with that. They also let you make payments instead of paying for the full three years up front. Again, nothing bad about that. They DO specify that you have to pay off the balance on any machines that you sell, though. How's that any different than, say, requiring you to pay off your bank loan before you sell your car?
It seems to be that nobody'd be complaining if they just required the entire payment for three years up-front and said"It's non-transferrable. Cope." People are pissed because Microsoft offers a payment plan, but they won't automatically transfer that plan.
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
Not that anyone who isn't actually buying or selling divisions of companies cares, but here are a couple of other things you might think about to make sure you're protected:
- make sure each legal entity is the licensor of its own licenses (ie. Bluelight should have been the licensor, not Kmart); then when the division is sold or divested, it is transparent to Microsoft (you may lose some volume discount here, of course);
- if you haven't done the above or are selling assets instead of equity, set up a permanent lease of the computers to the buyer instead of transferring ownership; make sure payments are structured (probably through some sort of escrow account or trust) so the lease is a lease and not a sale;
- in a bankruptcy, ask the judge to tell Microsoft to stuff it, which he may well have the power to do, and if he's a Windows user will certainly *want* to do.
Does it need to be said? IANAL.
On a related note, why doesn't some unemployed entrepreneur out there start a company that buys unused MS licenses (for Windows and Office, say) from companies that are downsizing or going out of business, then resell them to large companies that are being audited by MS? I know a few that would pay decent money just to not have to sort out the mess that is their file cabinet full of licenses, even if they do lose SA.
Milo
Anyone else remember a /. story from a couple of years ago where a teacher found a bunch of old 386 machines and installed a copy of Win3.1 on them for use by underprivledged children? IIRC, the machines themselves originally had a Windows license. MS tried to rape this guy and demand license fees for all the copies of the ~10 year old software.
It sounds to me like they are just codifying their past behavior into lawyereese in their EULA.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
This statement is incorrect. Compare the EULA before and after installing SP2 (or whatever the latest big service pack was). You'll notice a BIG change in the section labeled "Transfer".
Originally, my retail box of Windows XP Pro stated I was explicitly allows to transfer XP from one machine to another, provided I deleted the first copy.
After the upgrade, the EULA stated "The SOFTWARE is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single integrated product and may only be used with the HARDWARE." It goes on to state that if I sell the hardware, XP has to go with it.
This is from a full retail copy, folks. Take a look at your own EULA, \windows\system32\eula.txt. Also note that I never saw any indication this EULA was being updated in the SP2 installation process (and I read the presented update EULA there in full).
No need to jump off the cliff, I have made this suggestion many times to people who dislike microsoft's policies and are "stuck", basically, when it comes time to upgrade a certain product, consider the alternative, and slowly move on to another solution, just take your time, eventually, 3-4 years you will be rid of ms completly, with a very low cost as the transition will have been slow.
Posting useless rant since 2003.
The answer is, most contracts are in some way transferrable. If your aunt dies and leaves you a computer, its warrantee is transferred to you... in most states it's actually illegal to have it not transfer. If you sign up for three years' prepaid DSL in a house of six college students, and then transfer after the first year, you can (I have) transfer the service over to somone else's name, as long as they're at the same address. If your car comes with 60,000 mile power train protection, it doesn't matter if your car was sold eleven times, you're still entitled to it. (Unless your car has been sold as a salvage vehicle.)
There are non-transferrable contracts, but those have to be scrutinized carefully. For example, the idea a non-transferrable *END-USER* software license has been invalidated by the courts a number of times. Right of first purchase comes with the right to transfer your license to anyone else. (Do you honestly think there would be any way of transferring licenses for MS software if this weren't the case? There is, as long as it wasn't an OEM copy of Windows... and even then you can transfer it as long as you sell the hardware in tandem.)
Here we have a software purchase agreement which is nontransferrable. It's just that this one is for a big company, and so MS can, perhaps, get away with it.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
sorry guys, I love linux as much as the next guy, but the average 50 year-old in HR ISN'T going to be able to use it
If Linux is properly configured the 50 year-old in HR will be able to use it as well as he/she uses Windows (which may not be very well, but that's another story). And the sysadmin gets an advantage that Linux is much easier to protect from clumsy users. My wife uses Linux at home, she cannot trash the system accidentally. When the kids start messing with the "buttons" they're only going to risk her files not the system.
The only time I would recommend Windows is if there is a critical application that does not have a replacement in Linux. The list of those apps is getting smaller by the day.
Sig is on vacation
Lists of Microsoft Abuses:
Overall abuses: Reasons to Avoid Microsoft. (More than 200 in one year!)
Abuses in one product: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
Sometimes people confuse themselves by thinking of Microsoft as a software company that is abusive. It can be more clear to think of Microsoft as an abuse company that sells software.
Judging from some of the things I've seen, there must be executives at Microsoft who every day energetically think of more ways to put the customer's back against the wall.
I've spent more than 20 years studying things of this nature, and I think what's happening at Microsoft is a general social breakdown. Usually in situations of this sort, things get worse and worse until something breaks.
Other social breakdowns:
The U.S. government: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories
and What should be the Response to Violence?.
Law in the U.S. state of Oregon:
Complicated methods corrupt Oregon government.
and Airplanes are safe, but laws often crash.
Uh, you must not be in AG. As a sysadmin for an AG brigade, I can tell you that I have alot of XP computers under my control. Not my choice mind you, but the Army DOES use XP. XP does your 201 file, your life insurance, and your orders. They may not be in a tactical enviroment, but XP is alive and well in the Army.
PFC Gruhn
G1/AG Automation, the Dilbert Guy
I Corps, Fort Lewis, WA
"Serve and Sustain"
The *nix community needs to get some serious developer support before companies will really start to look at it seriously. Also the whole RTFM attitude is doing tons of harm to the movement as well. When the only support you can get for an OS is found on the web, and half the responses are along the lines of "RTFM 1d10t, y0ur a 1user, and 1m 37337" this does not instill confidence in that OS.
:) I suspect this is true of any software product or any OS (are the Microsoft/Mac/Whatever groups so much more polite and helpful?)
Now now, you're comparing apples and oranges here.
If you go direct to a Linux vendor like RedHat or a company like The Kompany for product support, you'll get a reasonable response. If you go to usenet for support, you may well get the sort of garbage you were talking about.
In general, if you want commercial-level support, go with a commercial product. That should be obvious. Buy StarOffice instead of using OpenOffice. The question, then, is whether or not enough *nix software has that level of support, and how many users really demand that level of support. That is a complicated question. I suspect that the correct answer is "It depends on the particular app you're talking about".
Of course, it never hurts to have the _option_ to look at the source code, go to Usenet for support, etc. as well.
- It's open source - So you can modify it to do what you want it to do. This, of course, takes time and money, and there isn't a company you can go to and pay them to do it.
Of course it takes time and money. If a company spends $50.000 on commercial software, they should compare that to spending $50.000 adapting free software. It might be worth it, and it might not. Not doing the math is just foolish.
... and of course there are companies that can do this! This is open source, anyone can do it, remember?
First off, I do not use currently use Apple products, but I am considering switching to Apple in order to rid myself of MS software forever. I just wanted to point out some flaws in your statements:
They nabbed their OS from an open source project, and closed the source for their port.
This would be a problem if they took GPL'd source, however, they used source under the BSD license. They are not required to give *anything* back. However, they do give a lot of upstream contributions back to the FreeBSD project (or is it NetBSD, I can't recall) and they open source their Darwin kernel under their own license. They did not need to do this stuff, but they did.
Incidentally, I beleive Sun took BSD code for Solaris, at least in part. Microsoft's TCP/IP stack is ripped straight from BSD code too. MS sure didn't give anything back, but Apple did.
They nabbed the source for a browser from an open source project, and closed the source for their port.
They took KHTML rendering engine, not exactly an entire browser. They speeded it up significantly, and contributed changes upstream to the KDE folks. If you use Konquerer, you can thank Apple for this speedup when it filters back down to you. The interface on top of this engine is closed source, but that is perfectly legitimate.
Wowsers! Wish "I" could get THAT kinda support!
Fact is, the world can't operate correctly under extremist views. Both open source and commercial development have their place, and its nice to see a company willing to find ways to integrate the two.
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
I am a PFC by college transfer before I came into the Army. I was studying for a CS BS degree when I ran out of money. I have been in for 16 months (need 18 months for waiver TIG to make E4). Therfore I have a much different perspective than most army techs. I have the perspective of an Sgt as a PFC.
Other than that the training for my job (MOS 74B) is very low. Its a 17 week traning course that starts with "This is a computer" and barely leaves the recuit able to complete a simple troubleshooting task. The AIT is very basic. Most people fail the unix setion. Its pathetic. Its very much presented in a non geek to non geek manner.
PFC Gruhn
G1/AG Automation, the Dilbert Guy
I Corps, Fort Lewis, WA
"Serve and Sustain"
Yes, but you get to stay in the building and use it the remaining 10 months too (assuming you keep paying). In Microsoft's version, since support is denied, you will still be out on the street, but paying the rent anyway.
Dude. It's an OEM copy. You got it with the computer and it is non-transferable.
If you buy Windows XP retail, you can install it on as many computers as you want, but only one at a time. It's the exact same scenario as Windows 2000.
Research this a little next time, eh?
The other point is that contracts usually get judged solely on what's contained inside of them, unless there's fraud, illegality, mistake, mutual recission, and a few other exceptions. So if you want to know what you've gotten yourself into, then RTFC. There are no state or federal laws (with a few small exceptions) that force you to agree to certain things, so it's all in the contract. And you don't need a law degree to understand them, either. Most of the legalese is shorthand so that broad concepts don't have to take pages and pages of explanation. Get a law dictionary (don't use Black's if you're a novice- it explains legal terms with legal terms, get one that uses layperson definitions) and go through it yourself. It might not be pleasant, but you'll understand more than you think you will.
IAAL
In this case, you are proposing to them an alternate contract, which they must accept. Silence can never be a means of contract acceptance. For example, if you are sent a magazine without asking for it with the legal terminology "failure to cancel in 30 days will be construed as acceptance of a subscription and we will bill you," you can't legally be held to their billing request -- and in fact, by not answering you can continue to recieve the magazine for free.
Furthermore, if you sent the contract back to Microsoft, you couldn't use the software until you either recieved a reply or decided to agree to the EULA.
Sorry, but this post suffers from flawed legal reasoning: silence or the failure to respond cannot be considered legal acceptance of a contract. Check with any lawyer...
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.