Rockin' on without Microsoft

[Asher]

Originally posted by JohnT
The machines were transferred to another employee (yet again in the article). One employee was using the machine, it got transferred to employee #2 and therefore was somehow "non-compliant."

Let me quote yet again:

Quote:

The guys in engineering need a new PC, so they get one and we pass theirs on to somebody doing clerical work. Well, if you don't wipe the hard drive on that PC, that's a violation.

(Didn't I quote this exact passage in the previous post?)

How is that different from:

Quote:

It is one license per user, but that license is transferrable to any user as long as it's only one user at once. "Retard."

The machine and the software on the machine got transferred. From one employee to another. Just like you said.

Are you sure you know what happened to this guy? You might want to read the article with a more open mind.

I think you're still fundamentally confused how Windows software licenses work.

The reason it was non-compliant wasn't because it was "licensed to employee #1 and transferred to employee #2" , it was non-compliant because employee #2 got employee #1's old computer, with Windows, and employee #1 got a new computer, with Windows. 2 employees, one license.

Hmm.

What's obviously happening here is you're reading into his (tremendous) slant, and you're falling for how he set up his wording. You don't need to "reformat your computer" for it to be legal, you need to obtain a license for both copies. One way to do this is to reformat the old one and acquire Windows again, another way is to simply call MS and say you'd like an additional license. Tada.

[mrmitchell]

Er...who said that the new machine didn't come with a license itself?

[Asher]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Er...who said that the new machine didn't come with a license itself?

If it did, it wouldn't be illegal. Hence it is assumed that the new ones shared the same license with the old ones moved down to the clerical people. And hence, it is improperly using a license. And hence, it is illegal.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Everybody's having a fun trollfest, I assume? (hopefully, as that'll mean there's no point in responding to this thread. )

[Asher]

Having a gay old time, Mike.

[JohnT]

Asher, you know I didn't think about that.... that the IT guys were reinstalling from the same CD-ROM.

But, then, it didn't say that is what they did. Do you have a cite saying that that is what they were doing, rather than a logic trail?

[Asher]

Nah, I have no reference to cite, it's just the only possible way they could be having 8% of their computers having improper licensing, also given the information that they migrated the computers down to other staff and got new ones.

I know for a fact it is not illegal to simply move a computer down to a new employee somewhere -- that would be absolutely ridiculous to be illegal. What is illegal, however, would be to move that computer and OS down to a new computer, then install that OS back on the new computer.

Of course, this guy would never mention any details like that in this interview, because its entire purpose is to try to extoll some kind of revenge against MS by converting as many people as possible with his outrageous tale of tyranny.

To add insult to injury, MS has no legal right (and hence, the Judge would've given no warrant to allow the BSA to raid them) to raid without giving the then-15-day (now 30-day) warning period. Meaning they were told about it 15-days in advance, but probably just assumed they were all legal copies, and didn't know any better. I would think this guy would be more pissed off at his inept IT people than anything else...

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Asher
Having a gay old time, Mike.

shirtless pics what?