Thread View: nz.comp
9 messages
9 total messages
Started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Sun, 10 Oct 2010 08:17
No More James Bannan
Author: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 08:17
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 08:17
16 lines
2010 bytes
2010 bytes
Does anybody else read APC Magazine? Among their columnists they used to number one James Bannan, who was basically their resident Windows Fanboi. Only his column seems to have stopped as of the last few months. One of the last items I remember him doing was on the wonders of PowerShell, and how Microsoft has finally seen fit to provide something resembling a command line for Windows, which lets you execute remote commands almost as easily as local ones. Well, when I say “almost as easily”, I mean you can do it. Sort of. You just have to figure out a completely different set of WMI commands to do it, which bear no resemblance to their local equivalents. And WMI is a lot more complicated and fiddly. But you can figure it out. Eventually. On the bright side, they’ve been doing a lot of Linux coverage, which seems to have been gradually increasing over the last several years. Judging from the amount of it, 5-10% of their readership must be made up of Linux users.
Re: No More James Bannan
Author: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 06:04
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 06:04
14 lines
1772 bytes
1772 bytes
In message <4cb29567$0$29868$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>, will s wrote: > In message <i8too0$u0u$2@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >> Microsoft doesn’t allow you to install an OEM licence for your own use, >> it has to be for an “unrelated” party. So you have to use a full-price >> retail licence. > > so all my PC's dont work and I am not typing this because its on an OEM > version and they dont work\\\bugger So you’ve just publicly admitted to installing an OEM Windows licence for your own use, in contravention of Microsoft’s licensing terms?
Re: No More James Bannan
Author: Rod Speed
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:17
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:17
18 lines
1760 bytes
1760 bytes
Stop molesting the followups without mentioning that. Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote > will s wrote >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote >>> Microsoft doesn't allow you to install an OEM licence for your own >>> use, it has to be for an "unrelated" party. So you have to use a >>> full-price retail licence. >> so all my PC's dont work and I am not typing this because >> its on an OEM version and they dont work\\\bugger > So you've just publicly admitted to installing an OEM Windows licence > for your own use, in contravention of Microsoft's licensing terms? Nope, he never signed up for any purported 'licensing terms' with an OEM product.
Re: No More James Bannan
Author: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:33
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:33
23 lines
2242 bytes
2242 bytes
In message <8hg31aF805U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote > >> will s wrote >> >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote > >>>> Microsoft doesn't allow you to install an OEM licence for your own >>>> use, it has to be for an "unrelated" party. So you have to use a >>>> full-price retail licence. > >>> so all my PC's dont work and I am not typing this because >>> its on an OEM version and they dont work\\\bugger > >> So you've just publicly admitted to installing an OEM Windows licence >> for your own use, in contravention of Microsoft's licensing terms? > > Nope, he never signed up for any purported 'licensing terms' with an OEM > product. If he never agreed to the licence, then he has no permission to use the software, since the licence is the only thing giving such permission.
Re: No More James Bannan
Author: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:18
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:18
17 lines
2188 bytes
2188 bytes
In message <ife5b65g6k4uj3peqmh8c66178hrqh7lus@4ax.com>, The Old Bloke wrote: > On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:04:12 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > >>So you’ve just publicly admitted to installing an OEM Windows licence for >>your own use, in contravention of Microsoft’s licensing terms? > > Maybe you should read up on Aus law. MS Terms and Conditions do not > override Aus law. One basic universal fact of copyright is that you cannot have a copy of the copyrighted item without permission (hence “copyright” = “right to copy”). The licence is what gives that permission. So if you don’t abide by the licence, then it doesn’t apply. Fine. Which means you have no permission. Which means that your copy of the software is infringing copyright. QED.
Re: No More James Bannan
Author: Rod Speed
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:31
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:31
31 lines
2512 bytes
2512 bytes
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote >>> will s wrote >>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote >>>>> Microsoft doesn't allow you to install an OEM licence for your own >>>>> use, it has to be for an "unrelated" party. So you have to use a >>>>> full-price retail licence. >>>> so all my PC's dont work and I am not typing this because >>>> its on an OEM version and they dont work\\\bugger >>> So you've just publicly admitted to installing an OEM Windows licence >>> for your own use, in contravention of Microsoft's licensing terms? >> Nope, he never signed up for any purported 'licensing terms' with an OEM product. > If he never agreed to the licence, then he has no permission to use > the software, since the licence is the only thing giving such permission. Wrong, as always. Its the retail sale that legally allows you to use the OS that you bought with the hardware. And you are massively confusing the purported 'licence' conditions anyway. With an OEM 'licence', thats between the operation that packages the PC with PCs that are sold with an OS included, or with the operation that bought the OEM OSs from Microsoft when a small operation assembles a PC from parts and includes an OEM OS with the PC, not the end user. You havent got a clue about even the most basic consumer law.
Re: No More James Bannan
Author: Rod Speed
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:38
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:38
35 lines
2328 bytes
2328 bytes
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote > The Old Bloke wrote >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote >>> So you�ve just publicly admitted to installing an OEM Windows licence >>> for your own use, in contravention of Microsoft�s licensing terms? >> Maybe you should read up on Aus law. MS Terms and Conditions do not override Aus law. > One basic universal fact of copyright is that you cannot > have a copy of the copyrighted item without permission But the retail sale is what gives that permission. > (hence "copyright" = "right to copy"). The retail sale is what gives that permission. > The licence is what gives that permission. Nope, the retail sale does. There is no 'licence' with most copyrighted material like a book or a music CD or movie DVD etc etc etc. > So if you don't abide by the licence, then it doesn't apply. Wrong. With an OEM product, any purported agreement is between MS and the assembler of the hardware, not the end user. > Fine. Which means you have no permission. Wrong, as always. > Which means that your copy of the software is infringing copyright. QED. Wrong, as always.
Re: No More James Bannan
Author: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:45
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:45
16 lines
1926 bytes
1926 bytes
In message <8hh0c7F7c9U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote > >> The licence is what gives that permission. > > Nope, the retail sale does. The retail sale commits nobody to anything. That’s why Microsoft’s licence says if you don’t agree to the terms, you can take the software back to where you obtained it for a full refund. > There is no 'licence' with most copyrighted material like a book or a > music CD or movie DVD etc etc etc. In fact there is. It’s printed on the CD cover, inside the book, etc.
Re: No More James Bannan
Author: Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 01:09
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 01:09
13 lines
1865 bytes
1865 bytes
In message <7946b69rse95gdmgl1nk3qpdmm8ohooict@4ax.com>, The Old Bloke wrote: > On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:33:45 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > >>If he never agreed to the licence, then he has no permission to use the >>software, since the licence is the only thing giving such permission. > > Easy to see that you have no legal training Easy to see you have never heard a qualified lawyer discuss the subject <http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/>.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads