[ILUG] It's "illegal" to remove Windows from your PC !!

[ger]

At 10:23 01/05/02 -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
>Quoting ger (gerdono at eircom.net)

Rick I will add the Pieces of the EULA which apply taken from Windows 95 
OEM Eula

> >> Please cite the statute.  EU, Ireland, or other.
> >
> > EULA States it
>
>1.  I don't believe it does.  If you think otherwise, please cite.

"This End-User License Agreement("EULA") is a legal agreement between you 
(either an individual or a single entity) and the manufacturer("PC 
Manufacturer") of the computer system("Computer") with which you acquired 
the Microsoft software product(s) identified above" blah blah.

>2.  As a reminder, in the posted hypothetical, the user immediately cast
>     the mandatory bundled software on his bonfire.  Not even in
>     Microsoft Corporation's most avaricious dreams did anyone consent to
>     a EULA.

This is interesting. The correct way to do it in accordance with the EULA.
"Termination. Without prejudice to any rights, Microsoft may terminate this 
EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In 
such an event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all 
of its component parts."

So you can transfer/sell/donate your hardware without it's original OEM 
Software provided you have a jolly bonfire as suggested. I stand corrected 
on this point.


>3.  The EULA might, in the unlikely event of being found by some court to
>     be partiallyor wholly enforceable, limit what you may do with the
>     _software_, but there's zero chance it could limit what you could do
>     with the _hardware_.
>

As Proved previously

>People, the reason it smells like rubbish is that it _is_ rubbish.
>
> > The link seemed to give a rather different slant on that.
>
>The link lies.  Why is this surprising?
>
>I will note in passing:

I did it does big time
EULA states
"Software Transfer. You may permanently transfer all rights.." blah blah
Not "You must" as implied by the website.



>4.  You didn't cite a statute.  If something is illegal, it is by
>     operation of statute (or caselaw), not some bullbleep Web page or
>     even a bullbleep piece of paper accompanying a throwaway piece of
>     bundled software.


  Refer to point one. There is to the best of my knowledge to case law on 
this matter in this juristriction Thus the use of the word "illegal" is 
probably incorrect from a legal point of view.

I certainly do not want to become a test case for such an action. So I 
personally treat the EULA as a legal and binding contract.

Regards Ger