So, MS go against their own licensing published clearly on their own licensing web site, fair enough. What it also says though is "if a consumer is building their own PC". In the case here they are not so OEM is STILL not valid.

Microsoft's stance on this topic has always been suspect. The bottom line is that I have never heard a single instance of Microsoft asserting these licensing terms over an end user. It's a bit like installing OS X on non-Apple equipment.

It's important to distinguish between what is asserted in a licence and what is "legal". In the extremely unlikely case of Microsoft taking action against an individual I think they could cite that interview as overriding any printed licence. There is nothing ilegal about installing an OEM version of Windows. We're Microsoft to take action against an individual (never happened so far) and were they to win the case (dubious), all they could recover would be subsequent losses - a few dollars.

Licences can be modified by public pronouncements of officers of the company. If that officer happens to be the Manger responsible for OEM sales there is not a hope in hell that Microsoft would win a (civil) action against an individual. It could also be argued that by selling OEM versions through normal retail channels Microsoft are clearly inviting a breach of unenforceable licence terms.

There is nothing illegal here. There is a possible breach of licence - a civil matter - which is extremely unlikely to be upheld by a court.

But the article is from 2009 and that website has to be later as it is talking about Win 8 which didn't exist then - so precedence can shift again.

It may be a civil matter but that means it is civil law rather than criminal - still illegal - whether MS do anything about it is a different question and when giving advice to use OEM you must make clear the potential license issues or you are giving advice that someone may take on face value without understanding the potential problems.

It is clear this IS against MS license agreement for OEM. MS may do nothing about it and may internally have a policy that they won't - but anyone buying OEM needs to be aware of the license and take their own decision to risk it.

I was under the impression that if the OEM licence was purchased with any piece of hardware (motherboard, HDD, etc) then that was covered.

From what I can tell from some odd bits and pieces on the Internet that is no longer relevant. But, as usual with MS licensing as about as clear as a very opaque thing...

I don't think you understand the difference between something that is illegal and something that is a breach of contract. There's nothing illegal about breaching a contract, but the injured party may take action against you for redress.

No matter. The pragmatic approach works fine; the simple fact is that millions of users install OEM software and there is no recorded instance of Microsoft taking action against a single one of them. It's more likely that your motherboard will turn out to be stolen property than that Microsoft will seek redress from you if use OEM software.

In reply to a post by ian72:

From what I can tell from some odd bits and pieces on the Internet that is no longer relevant. But, as usual with MS licensing as about as clear as a very opaque thing...

I think you are being generous in suggesting it is even as clear as that!!

A certain expression, using the word "mud", springs to my mind!

I considered mud but thought mud itself may actually be a little too clear. I also thought of black holes but you can see black holes by their impact on the surrounding space - with MS licensing you don't even get that vague view.

I am seriously considering using Linux and avoiding all this exploitative (or at least deliberately vague) nonsense. Mint 16 seems to me to do everything Windows XP SP3 does and I have seen nothing saying that W7 has anything better than XP.

Trevor Adcock

Using both those Operating Systems