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."
You don't own software. Software is a contract, and even though you shelled out $x for a piece of software, you are bound to the agreement. Transfering a Windows license is like any other contract.. read it carefully and make sure you're permitted to do so.
I'm not saying that MS is good, quite the contrary. They will rape their customers for as much money as they can, but from a bunsiness standpoint they're just just doing business.
If you don't like it, use linux.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
..."What microsoft is really doing is saying, 'Hey, just recognize you are truly at our mercy.' "
If you didn't already know that, you just haven't been paying attention.
How many more reasons do companies need to dump Microsoft and go with unix/linux?
comment directly in my journal
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.
The same goes with many other maintanaince/support contracts. Dont like it? Do business with someone else.
We have customers who still contractually pay for support on HP big iron boxes that havent been plugged in for years.
Another case of MSFT doing the same thing everyone else does, execpt (heres the kicker!) for some reason it's "evil" because you dont like windows.
Big fat whoop. MS Licensing is a business support contract, and pretty much a standard one at that.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The answer according to microsoft is no. Some would argue that the first sale doctrine in Copyright law says differently, the truth is that it is impossible to determine until it is tested in court.
However the article addresses the issue of business enterprise and site licenses and doesn't directly apply to consumers.
IANAL so this is just what I would do, but I would not have any moral problem using it on a different computer. And since Microsoft/BSA are very unlikely to go after consumers who have no money... likely you won't ever get sued.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Not to *use* it, it doesn't. The GPL only asks for your source if you use it's source. It's like consensual sex vs rape...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
As businesses get wise to these kind of contracts, they will get smarter about entering into them. For years now, most companies have been "stupid" when it comes to IT -- but times are changing. Companies are getting MUCH more sophisticated about how they handle their IT.
This is a short term problem.
Instead of whining here are some things that you can do.
Ask computer manufacturers if their machines are linux compatible
(especially laptops)video cards, sound cards, etc.
Most have a toll free numbers.
If the don't support linux ask "them when will they?".
Ask software suppliers it they have ported their products to linux.
Call their main office. Once one company listens others will follow.
We need a "Linux Call the Manufacturer Day".
They will get the message.
No, the activation 'scheme' is to ensure its running on one machine at a time. You call MS to 'reactivate' - they purge the old record from the database, and put on a new one - when you install on another machine. (They've never really 'turned on' the activation servers to enforce this stuff).
Its like my cable provider only allowing my account to be used from one cablemodem at a time. If I replace it, I have to call and tell them, they purge the old MAC address and enter the new one.
Personally, I think its a bunch of crap and a show of good faith is in order. But then there are probably millions of the same copy of windows 2000 installed on machines. MSFT is after all, a publicly traded for-profit company.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Legislatures often pass bad laws. Their intentions are good, but the letter of the law often leads to ridiculous conclusions when taken to the extreme.
It usually takes many years to discover how badly a law has been written, because it usually takes many years for people (or companies) to get around to pushing the wording to its logical conclusion. When Microsoft (or the RIAA, etc.) imposes seemingly ridiculously licensing terms on the public, they're actually doing us all a service in the long run, by quickly demonstrating to legislators that the applicable public policies are (in the long run) unworkable.
We know Microsoft isn't going to "win" in the long run (they're losing our data centers already, and eventually they'll lose our desktops and office suites as well), but when they do these extremely silly things they actually help hasten their own eventual demise, by rapidly educating the public (and the policy makers) about what's wrong with current regulation.
Getting laws corrected may feel like it's occuring with glacial slowness to those of us who already understand where things are heading, but it'll actually happen much more quickly than it would otherwise, the worse Microsoft behaves. So I say, heck ya Microsoft! Charge us twice for things you don't deliver...charge us ten times, twenty! Let's show the world what the phrase "illegal monopoly" -really- means.
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
better way to put it:
-hey, there's this company that wants us to pay them even if we stop using their product and there's an extra contract included that gives them rights to anything we have on our systems if they would want it. the contract also includes an extortion option for them we can do nothing about, and the system is going to go through expensive forced migration to another backwards incompatible system in short time, and this we can do nothing about either if we want our business to be safe. oh, and there's an alternative for using them that would free our balls from their fist.
-why exactly are we doing business with this company again?
surely, not as black'n'white as that, but if executives actually read and understood half of the stuff they agree with ms...
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Is that even if MS went away tomorrow, we wouldn't suddenly have a great new OS to replace them. I mean, 12 years later Linux, while having made great strides, is NOT ready for mainstream yet.
Sad but true.
Once Linux becomes capable enough to make it mainstream MS won't be able to keep it out. Because there is little real financial burden on Linux. It's an open source product where ALOT of the work is done, in essence, for free. So MS can't bully it out of the marketplace by putting pressure on their vendors until the OS suffocates itself for lack of funds like a competing comppany would surely do.
It's here to stay because nobody is paying for it, and nobody is financially burdened by it. So it developson it's own, with TONS of fierce competition from MS. And it does nothing but grow and grow.
People should STOP complaining about Ms being a monopoly and START contributing to Linux/GNU.
One of the above posters said if you don't like it, don't use it. Thats dead wrong. As with everything else in life, if you don't like it, do something to change it. Do something to enhance Linux and/or its acceptance.
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
"So, it sounds like Micro$oft has got you by the ball's eh. It's called a monopoly."
Nope, at least not in the example he used. The problem he described wasn't that the stuff wasn't unavailble, the problem was that it'd cost them money. The ability to move is there, he's not being prevented from switching platforms. His company was too reliant on one vendor.
This can easily happen whether the vendor is a monopoly or not.
I don't know why anybody would want to throw everything out overnight.
But haven't it occured to you that maybe just stop upgrading Windows and using Linux boxes when the hardware needs to be replaced is a viable alternative.
That's what I would do.
So if it's too much trouble, and they'd rather pay for maintenance that they're not going to use, then they should shut up and stop complaining.
/. about MS Licensing is fun in order to keep up with the evil empire's latest shenanigans, and to laugh at people who willingly put up with them. But I really have no sympathy for anyone who does, for no really good reason. If they're not willing to go through some trouble to free themselves of this abuse, they deserve all the abuse they get. At no time in history has liberty come without cost.
Honestly, if I really hate some vendor I'm a customer of, I simply dump them and go somewhere else. The only time I can't do this is if it's a utility monopoly, like the trash service. The phone system used to be like this too, but now I've dumped Qwest and gotten a cellphone, so I have no need for that monopoly anymore. MS is a monopoly too, in the sense that they have control of 90%+ of some markets, but just like Qwest vs. cellphones, there are alternatives out there for those willing to go through the trouble.
Reading articles here on
How do I sell my CFO and my CEO on non-Microsoft platforms when all our clients want work done using MS technologies?
Simple: you don't! If your clients want MS crap, then you have two choices: 1) give it to them, and put up with all that entails. 2) tell your clients to go to hell, and get some new clients.
Your decision here can be made using simple economics; for choice 1, you determine how much revenue you're getting from these MS-loving clients, and how much you're paying (license fees, etc.) to provide what they want. If you're profitable, then be happy. But if you're losing money, then who cares what the clients want? Either raise prices to become profitable (which may cause the clients to bail on you) or find some new clients.
Seriously, why are you here? If you're happy using MS crap, because a bunch of dumb clients are paying you to provide stuff using MS crap, and you're profitable, then you have nothing to complain about, regardless of MS's crazy licensing schemes, and might as well ignore this whole discussion topic. If you, as an individual, is unhappy working with MS crap, but your company is happy, then you need to either learn to put up with it or find a better job. If your company is losing money because of Licensing 6.0 and is about to go down the toilet, but management is too stupid to make the hard decisions necessary to fix the problem (i.e., get new customers), then you should probably start working on your resume.
buy a cell phone w/ 2 year license
lose cell phone after 6 months
still pay remainig 1.5 years left in license...
How hard is that to understand?
This is easy to understand, and fair.
The cell phone network heavily subsidizes your purchase of the cell phone. equipment. They want you to commit in order to get that subsidy. You can't just buy the phone, and then switch service in 30 days, taking the phone that they mostly paid for over to their competitors network, paying the competitor for network service.
There is no such comparison here. If I'm going to pay for 3 years of upgrades, even if I pay today, then it seems fair that this covered computer should get three years of upgrades, even if said computer is in someone else's hands. You can't have it both ways. (Of course, Microsoft can because they have monopolost control -- the very definition of which is not the absence of competition, but one of control where they can get away with stuff that they could not in a non-monopoly situation.)
If I pay for 3 years of insurance, the covered computer gets coverage for three years. What is so different here? If I cancel the policy, then I stop paying, and stop getting coverage.
Why are you trying to defend Microsoft's unfair practice? (Just curious.)
If I'm 1 year into a 3 year payment and upgrade plan, then why wouldn't it be fair that the software on my computer today is fully licensed if I cancel the plan today. It is also fair that I should get no further upgrades under the plan. But not getting either of these is simply unfair. Remember this plan is upgrade advantage. Not acquisition. You still have to acquire the product before enrolling it in upgrade advantage. I stop paying in 2 months, I stop having any rights to upgrade at that time. The original acquisition, and any upgrades received thus far should be mine. Shouldn't they? (If everything were fair.)
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Run something else!
There arent that many killer apps not availiable on alternative OS any longer. On a average company you can come a long way with linux if you plan for linux from day one. Same with Apple albeit more expensive hardware is required. The only problem as i can see it is if a company is tailored to run on Microsoft software. With licenses like that it sure looks as if its is well worth the pain to migrate away to ABM.
Im sitting on a friends Windows right now and i feel it lacks a lot of things. The ONLY thing Windows has is more applications, as an OS it is just an empty shell.
HTTP/1.1 400