Windows OEM versions - what Microsoft told me

[peterb]

Sure, but say I purchase my OEM copy from Scan. Scan are system builders themselves, so they can legitimately sell the unopened OEM software to another system builder. It's just that the system builder is me.

Only an authorised OEM distributor can distribute OEM licences to a system builder. The list is available via this link. So Nacomach systems should only obtain their OEM licences from one of those sources.

Microsoft and OEM System Builder Licensing

[charleski]

we're not discussing one license, but two.

By opening the package, you agreed to the licence, which says that you can't use the software and makes no reference to the end-user licence that is only exposed when you use the software and login for the first time. If you want to argue it further, take it to a judge, because I don't see the point in trying to claim that Section 15.1 doesn't apply to you.

[nichomach]

Only an authorised OEM distributor can distribute OEM licences to a system builder...

Not according to the SB license:
"AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION AND ACCEPTANCE. Distribution of individual software licenses or hardware
units contained in this Microsoft System Builder Pack (“package”) is not authorized unless you accept this
license. You accept this license when you open this package. By accepting this license, you agree that you are a
system builder. If you do not open this package, you may distribute it to another system builder. “System builder”
means an original equipment manufacturer, or an assembler, reassembler, or installer of software on computer
systems. If you choose not to accept this license, promptly return the unopened package to your distributor. Individual
software licenses or hardware units cannot be returned after this package is opened"

[nichomach]

By opening the package...

But I'm not claiming any usage rights under this license; and you can't simply keep parroting 15.1 without recognising that it doesn't supersede either the preceding sections of the license or a license external to the SB license. That external license, by the way, being the EULA that I would putatively license to myself. If 15.1 superseded any other license then one would be in a position where an SB could build a machine with an OEM of, say Vista Business for someone else, but COULDN'T run VB OEM from any source even if it were, say, preinstalled by HP or Dell or somebody.

[peterb]

Not according to the SB license:
"AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION AND ACCEPTANCE. Distribution of individual software licenses or hardware<---snip--->"

True, but that refers to the system builder's licence package - not the OEM package. The whole area is gray though, and will be until MS decide not to turn a blind eye, and someone takes them to court. Meanwhile, carry on building.

That said, clause 1 appears to contradict itself, and the MS web site.

[nichomach]

True, but that refers to the system builder's licence package - not the OEM package.

Erm...no, that's the license included with the OEM pack, helpfully printed on the brown cardboard box that it arrives in. Just checked - and before anyone gets sniffy that's on a disk set to be used with a machine we're supplying to someone else.

[dangel]

Not from MS they don't.

Irrespective of our differences - they're sold regularly to punters.

I don't see why people get so up-in-arms about the fact that we're exploiting a loophole.

Or indeed so worried about the technicalities of the EULA verus the realities. Loophole or not MS are perfectly capable of employing enough legal-parasites to sort it - and they never have..

No I have to fly to India, build a call centre, install a PBX, use a voice box to render myself incomprehensible, give myself a generic but vaguely English sounding name and THEN phone myself. DO try to keep up with the times...

To you sir, I can only apologise.

[charleski]

But I'm not claiming any usage rights under this license; and you can't simply keep parroting 15.1 without recognising that it doesn't supersede either the preceding sections of the license or a license external to the SB license. That external license, by the way, being the EULA that I would putatively license to myself. If 15.1 superseded any other license then one would be in a position where an SB could build a machine with an OEM of, say Vista Business for someone else, but COULDN'T run VB OEM from any source even if it were, say, preinstalled by HP or Dell or somebody.

The System Builder licence that you agreed to by opening the package refers only to the software licence contained in the package. Don't see what's so hard about that. You can receive an OEM licence as part of a fully-built system made by someone else and use it just fine. But by opening the package, you're agreeing that you can't use the software licence contained in the package. Since you've already agreed to that, the subsequent End-User licence in the package is void and doesn't apply.

I agree that you don't need any sort of special dispensation to pass on an unopened OEM pack to someone else. That's what allows these things to be distributed through the channel and makes it easier for small systems builders to get their hands on genuine licences. If MS ever decided to get tough on enthusiasts using OEM, then this would probably change, but in practice it would hurt their business more than it would be worth.

[charleski]

Or indeed so worried about the technicalities of the EULA verus the realities.

Because it's generally a good idea not to delude yourself. Look at the indignant tone of the first 3 answers to the OP. They were all wrong.

[nichomach]

The System Builder licence t...

But it doesn't actually say that, charleski. Anywhere. All it says is that the previous sections must be followed. Which they are.

Because it's generally a good idea not to delude yourself. Look at the indignant tone of the first 3 answers to the OP. They were all wrong.

Nope.

[dangel]

Right gents - it's handbags at dawn! Do your worst..

[charleski]

But it doesn't actually say that, charleski. Anywhere. All it says is that the previous sections must be followed. Which they are.

It does. It's absolutely clear, and I've explained this a couple of times now.

Once more, and for the final time, very slowly so it'll get through:
1) Usage of the included software licence is mentioned only once in the entire licence.
2) The sole mention of usage is restricted to stipulating that you can't use it.

[mssmallbiz]

@ Spiral Out - "Taz, I have had an OEM copy of xp home that i have used on three different machines as i have built them, not at the same time."

NOTE: OEM licenses have NO transfer rights (look on my Blog on November 1st for more on this: blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/archive/2007/11/01/5821322.aspx ), so you cannot legally move an OEM license to another PC, it must remain on the original PC it was installed on. Based on your statement above, you do not have a legal Windows license installed on your PCs.

If you are a System Builder, you can acquire OEM Microsoft Windows software for installation on systems you build. You should acquire your OEM Windows software from an Authorized OEM Distributor (look on my Blog on June 18th for OEM resources: blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/archive/2007/02/14/oem-system-builder-partner-resources.aspx) to ensure you are purchasing legitimate OEM software since there is a LOT of counterfeit and illegal OEM software being sold online from other sites.

[nichomach]

But the license cannot rule out rights which accrue under the EULA which is a separate agreement. Indeed 15.1 doesn't explicitly restrict itself to software contained in the package as noted above if read out of context. Sorry, charleski, I understand why you think what you do, but that section simply doesn't do what you think it does. The simple phrase "Except as granted in this license..." means that it must be read in the context of all of the other provisions which give the right to distribute the software and EULA, and it's the EULA that confers usage rights. All 15.1 states is that THIS license doesn't let you perform the listed activities except as noted elsewhere.

[directhex]

Because it's generally a good idea not to delude yourself. Look at the indignant tone of the first 3 answers to the OP. They were all wrong.

license changes aren't retroactive. whilst i was unaware of MS changing their license to prevent OEM sales, for any windows license agreed to before late 2005, the old rules apply

[mycarsavw]

Does that mean he has to phone himself?

I tried that once, I was engaged though, I had to leave myself a message