Interesting Licensing Question

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question Which by the way hasn't been covered, or I just missed it in the past 3
years.

We all know you can use an upgrade version of XP if you own a previous OS
like 98, and are only required to put the disc in to verify, then XP will
install.

Now, what is the status of that Windows98 disk ? Can it still be used for a
PC installation ?

Windows XP1229

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question DanS wrote:
> Which by the way hasn't been covered, or I just missed it in the past 3
> years.
>
> We all know you can use an upgrade version of XP if you own a previous OS
> like 98, and are only required to put the disc in to verify, then XP will
> install.
>
> Now, what is the status of that Windows98 disk ? Can it still be used for a
> PC installation ?
>
>
>

My guess would be, according to MS, no. According to common sense, yes,
on as many computers as the mood strikes you.

Alias

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question DanS wrote:

> Which by the way hasn't been covered, or I just missed it in the past 3
> years.
>
> We all know you can use an upgrade version of XP if you own a previous OS
> like 98, and are only required to put the disc in to verify, then XP will
> install.
>
> Now, what is the status of that Windows98 disk ? Can it still be used for
> a PC installation ?

Not according to MS - but hey, how will they find out?

--
Gordon Burgess-Parker
Interim Systems and Management Accounting
www.gbpcomputing.co.uk

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question Sure, it can still be used.

"DanS" <EMail@HideDomain.com..n.e.t> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> Which by the way hasn't been covered, or I just missed it in the past 3
> years.
>
> We all know you can use an upgrade version of XP if you own a previous OS
> like 98, and are only required to put the disc in to verify, then XP will
> install.
>
> Now, what is the status of that Windows98 disk ? Can it still be used for
> a
> PC installation ?
>
>
>

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question Tom [Pepper] Willett wrote:

> Sure, it can still be used.
>

I thought /technically/ the original OS licence is subsumed into the upgrade
licence?

--
Gordon Burgess-Parker
Interim Systems and Management Accounting
www.gbpcomputing.co.uk

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question Type eula.txt and it tells you.

--=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------------
How to lose a war in Iraq
http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=3Dnode/1335#comment-48641
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"DanS" <EMail@HideDomain.com..n.e.t> wrote in message =
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> Which by the way hasn't been covered, or I just missed it in the past =
3=20
> years.
>=20
> We all know you can use an upgrade version of XP if you own a previous =
OS=20
> like 98, and are only required to put the disc in to verify, then XP =
will=20
> install.
>=20
> Now, what is the status of that Windows98 disk ? Can it still be used =
for a=20
> PC installation ?
>=20
>=20
>

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
> No. The Windows 98 license is incorporated into
> the Windows XP Upgrade license and forms the
> complete license. Therefore, the Windows 98
> license cannot be re-used to reinstall Windows 98.
>

You mean "may" not, don't you?

Alias

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question No. The Windows 98 license is incorporated into
the Windows XP Upgrade license and forms the
complete license. Therefore, the Windows 98
license cannot be re-used to reinstall Windows 98.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"DanS" wrote:

| Which by the way hasn't been covered, or I just missed it in the past 3
| years.
|
| We all know you can use an upgrade version of XP if you own a previous OS
| like 98, and are only required to put the disc in to verify, then XP will
| install.
|
| Now, what is the status of that Windows98 disk ? Can it still be used for a
| PC installation ?

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question > We all know you can use an upgrade version of XP if you own a previous OS
> like 98, and are only required to put the disc in to verify, then XP will
> install.
>
> Now, what is the status of that Windows98 disk ? Can it still be used for a
> PC installation ?

What if you install that windows 98 on the same system? Is there still
an issue?

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question Yes, because the original Windows 98 software and the
Windows XP upgrade version software together form a
single software program. If you wish to install Windows
98, then you'll need a "Full Version" of Windows XP
rather than an "Upgrade Version".

Sorta like trading in an old car for credit towards a new car.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Â----------------

"jeffareid" wrote:

| What if you install that windows 98 on the same system? Is there still
| an issue?

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question > | What if you install that windows 98 on the same system? Is there still
> | an issue?

> Yes, because the original Windows 98 software and the
> Windows XP upgrade version software together form a
> single software program. If you wish to install Windows
> 98, then you'll need a "Full Version" of Windows XP
> rather than an "Upgrade Version".

But isn't a user allowed to install multiple copies of XP on the same system
for backup purposes (eg in order to backup the OS partition, you need to be
running another OS).

The EULA for XP is written poorly as it only describes what a end user "may"
do, without any exclusionary statements, as to what an end user "may not" do.
On top of this, in the states and countries that don't consider EULA's to be
valid, then you fall back to copyright law, which allows multiple copies as
long as there's never an instance of more than one copy being used at the
same time.

Another scenario, is where a different OS (Windows 2000, NT, or XP X64) is
used to backup the XP (32-bit) OS. This could be to another disk partition,
or to removable media. Two images of the same OS, or technically make that 3,
as you still have a bootable copy of the original OS on the installation
cd-rom.

I had a friend that was involved with the $475,000 settlement involving Best
Buy, Microsoft and 4 other companies concerning the catch 22 that if a
consumer doesn't agree with an EULA, there was no way to return the product
for a refund because it was "opened" software. Microsoft is now refunding
money and shipping costs to consumers that disagree with EULA's, but Best Buy
never complied to the terms of the settlement as they have never posted
anything about how to obtain EULA information at their store, even though the
settlement stated that such information was to be clearly posted in the
stores or made known to a consumer when checking out and purchasing a
product.

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question Give Microsoft Licensing department a call for a
definitive answer.
1-800-426-9400

Outside the US, the following page has links to local licensing sites
which include local customer service phone number
(http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/index/worldwide.mspx)

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Â----------------

"jeffareid" wrote:

| But isn't a user allowed to install multiple copies of XP on the same system
| for backup purposes (eg in order to backup the OS partition, you need to be
| running another OS).
|
| The EULA for XP is written poorly as it only describes what a end user "may"
| do, without any exclusionary statements, as to what an end user "may not" do.
| On top of this, in the states and countries that don't consider EULA's to be
| valid, then you fall back to copyright law, which allows multiple copies as
| long as there's never an instance of more than one copy being used at the
| same time.
|
| Another scenario, is where a different OS (Windows 2000, NT, or XP X64) is
| used to backup the XP (32-bit) OS. This could be to another disk partition,
| or to removable media. Two images of the same OS, or technically make that 3,
| as you still have a bootable copy of the original OS on the installation
| cd-rom.
|
| I had a friend that was involved with the $475,000 settlement involving Best
| Buy, Microsoft and 4 other companies concerning the catch 22 that if a
| consumer doesn't agree with an EULA, there was no way to return the product
| for a refund because it was "opened" software. Microsoft is now refunding
| money and shipping costs to consumers that disagree with EULA's, but Best Buy
| never complied to the terms of the settlement as they have never posted
| anything about how to obtain EULA information at their store, even though the
| settlement stated that such information was to be clearly posted in the
| stores or made known to a consumer when checking out and purchasing a
| product.

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question DanS wrote:
> Which by the way hasn't been covered, or I just missed it in the past 3
> years.
>
> We all know you can use an upgrade version of XP if you own a previous OS
> like 98, and are only required to put the disc in to verify, then XP will
> install.
>
> Now, what is the status of that Windows98 disk ? Can it still be used for a
> PC installation ?
>
>
>

That topic's been covered many times, but you may well have missed it.
No, you cannot use the Win98 license on another computer, if it's in
use as the qualifying license for an upgrade. Read the Upgrade's EULA;
the license for the older, qualifying product becomes part of (or
subsumed by) the upgrade license.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question
DanS wrote:
> Which by the way hasn't been covered, or I just missed it in the past 3
> years.
>
> We all know you can use an upgrade version of XP if you own a previous OS
> like 98, and are only required to put the disc in to verify, then XP will
> install.
>
> Now, what is the status of that Windows98 disk ? Can it still be used for a
> PC installation ?

As long as the numbers are not the ones that XP used to make the
upgrade, why not?

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question I think he said "disk" not "licence". They're two seperate things.

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question Because the upgraded OS becomes part of the XP license.

--
Customers in the U.S. and Canada can receive technical support from
Microsoft Product Support Services at 1-866-PCSAFETY. There is no charge for
support calls that are associated with security updates
Larry Samuels Associate Expert
MS-MVP (2001-2005)
Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
http://pelos.us/SERVER.htm
Expert Zone- www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
<EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>
> DanS wrote:
>> Which by the way hasn't been covered, or I just missed it in the past 3
>> years.
>>
>> We all know you can use an upgrade version of XP if you own a previous OS
>> like 98, and are only required to put the disc in to verify, then XP will
>> install.
>>
>> Now, what is the status of that Windows98 disk ? Can it still be used for
>> a
>> PC installation ?
>
> As long as the numbers are not the ones that XP used to make the
> upgrade, why not?
>

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question Using the disk ties the license for that disk to the xp install.

--
Customers in the U.S. and Canada can receive technical support from
Microsoft Product Support Services at 1-866-PCSAFETY. There is no charge for
support calls that are associated with security updates
Larry Samuels Associate Expert
MS-MVP (2001-2005)
Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
http://pelos.us/SERVER.htm
Expert Zone- www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
<EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>I think he said "disk" not "licence". They're two seperate things.
>

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question
See replies in-line ---

jeffareid wrote:

>>| What if you install that windows 98 on the same system? Is there still
>>| an issue?
>
>
>>Yes, because the original Windows 98 software and the
>>Windows XP upgrade version software together form a
>>single software program. If you wish to install Windows
>>98, then you'll need a "Full Version" of Windows XP
>>rather than an "Upgrade Version".
>
>
> But isn't a user allowed to install multiple copies of XP on the same system
> for backup purposes (eg in order to backup the OS partition, you need to be
> running another OS).

There is a difference between "installing" and "making
copies". The EULA limits the number of installations but
not the number of copies of the source files.

> The EULA for XP is written poorly as it only describes what a end user "may"
> do, without any exclusionary statements, as to what an end user "may not" do.
> On top of this, in the states and countries that don't consider EULA's to be
> valid, then you fall back to copyright law, which allows multiple copies as
> long as there's never an instance of more than one copy being used at the
> same time.

The problem is that users try to split hairs by forgetting
that there is a difference between multiple copies and
multiple installations. Multiple copies does not necessarily
mean multiple working versions...just multiple file sets. An
installation implies something entirely different.

> Another scenario, is where a different OS (Windows 2000, NT, or XP X64) is
> used to backup the XP (32-bit) OS. This could be to another disk partition,
> or to removable media. Two images of the same OS, or technically make that 3,
> as you still have a bootable copy of the original OS on the installation
> cd-rom.

But, in reality, an image file (even multiple image files)
of the same installation can only work successfully without
repair on the system from which it was originated. And only
one version of Windows can be functioning at one time as the
OS, in any event.

<<snipped>>

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question > > But isn't a user allowed to install multiple copies of XP on the same
system
> > for backup purposes (eg in order to backup the OS partition, you need to be
> > running another OS).
>
> There is a difference between "installing" and "making
> copies". The EULA limits the number of installations but
> not the number of copies of the source files.

Read the EULA, it doesn't distiguish between "install, use, access, display"
or "run", nor does it restrict the number of installations as written. "Copy"
isn't covered in this case, but maybe "access" and "display" cover this. How
do you "display" software, a hex dump of the code and data?

Note that since the lawsuit I referred to, Microsoft and the other 2
software vendors invovled have to make some of their EULA's available online.
The Eula from the home edition of XP, since that was the package that
triggered the lawsuit, is available, and I quote from the web site:

"You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a
single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one
processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer."

Note that the EULA only states that an end user may not use the software on
more than one processor at a time on any single workstation computer. I
wonder if this will be updated to allow usage by multi-core cpus. Some of
Intels "dual-core" cpu's are literally just two processors in the same chip.

Nothing in the EULA states that an end user "may not" install multiple
copies of the OS on the same system.

If the intent was to limit the number of installations, the EULA should have
read that the user "may only ..." instead of "may", which clearly have
different meanings. "May only" would be part of a restrictive clause, "may"
is part of an inclusive clause.

As I previously mentioned, it's not clearly worded: "The Software may not be
used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation
Computer." Does this mean a user could install the software on multiple
machines as long as none of them are single workstations with multiple
processors? In this case copyright law covers this. You can only run one
instance at a time, but there's no limit to how many instances or machines
the software can be installed on, as long as only one instance is run at a
time.

Personally, I'm not affected as I have Windows XP Pro X64 and Windows XP Pro
SP2 (32-bit) installed on the same machine, each are full (non-upgrade)
copies. I use either OS to backup the other OS partition. However it's common
practice with some users to install mulitple copies of the same OS on the
same system for reliablity and backup purposes.

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question Alias wrote:

> Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
>> No. The Windows 98 license is incorporated into
>> the Windows XP Upgrade license and forms the
>> complete license. Therefore, the Windows 98
>> license cannot be re-used to reinstall Windows 98.
>>
>
> You mean "may" not, don't you?
>
> Alias

I don't think he is bright enough to understand the difference.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question Larry Samuels wrote:

> Because the upgraded OS becomes part of the XP license.

According to MicroHypothesis, which has yet to be proven to be an actual
fact.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question In news:EMail@HideDomain.com,
DanS <EMail@HideDomain.com..n.e.t> replied with a ;-)
> Which by the way hasn't been covered, or I just missed it in the past
> 3 years.
>
> We all know you can use an upgrade version of XP if you own a
> previous OS like 98, and are only required to put the disc in to
> verify, then XP will install.
>
> Now, what is the status of that Windows98 disk ? Can it still be used
> for a PC installation ?

Licensing wise No, it has been covered many times, but there is no physical
limitation.
When a qualifying Windows CD is used for validating a XP upgrade the
qualifying Windows is now combined into the license of the XP upgrade. The
qualifying Windows license is now retired and cannot be installed on another
computer and be in compliance with the qualifying Windows EULA. The lower
cost of the Windows upgrade is dependent on the retirement of the qualifying
Windows media.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
EMail@HideDomain.com
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

Windows XP >> Interesting Licensing Question
jeffareid wrote:

>>>But isn't a user allowed to install multiple copies of XP on the same
>
> system
>
>>>for backup purposes (eg in order to backup the OS partition, you need to be
>>>running another OS).
>>
>>There is a difference between "installing" and "making
>>copies". The EULA limits the number of installations but
>>not the number of copies of the source files.
>
>
> Read the EULA, it doesn't distiguish between "install, use, access, display"
> or "run", nor does it restrict the number of installations as written. "Copy"
> isn't covered in this case, but maybe "access" and "display" cover this. How
> do you "display" software, a hex dump of the code and data?
>
> Note that since the lawsuit I referred to, Microsoft and the other 2
> software vendors invovled have to make some of their EULA's available online.
> The Eula from the home edition of XP, since that was the package that
> triggered the lawsuit, is available, and I quote from the web site:
>
> "You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a
> single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
> ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one
> processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer."
>
> Note that the EULA only states that an end user may not use the software on
> more than one processor at a time on any single workstation computer. I
> wonder if this will be updated to allow usage by multi-core cpus. Some of
> Intels "dual-core" cpu's are literally just two processors in the same chip.
>
> Nothing in the EULA states that an end user "may not" install multiple
> copies of the OS on the same system.
>
> If the intent was to limit the number of installations, the EULA should have
> read that the user "may only ..." instead of "may", which clearly have
> different meanings. "May only" would be part of a restrictive clause, "may"
> is part of an inclusive clause.
>
> As I previously mentioned, it's not clearly worded: "The Software may not be
> used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation
> Computer." Does this mean a user could install the software on multiple
> machines as long as none of them are single workstations with multiple
> processors? In this case copyright law covers this. You can only run one
> instance at a time, but there's no limit to how many instances or machines
> the software can be installed on, as long as only one instance is run at a
> time.
>
> Personally, I'm not affected as I have Windows XP Pro X64 and Windows XP Pro
> SP2 (32-bit) installed on the same machine, each are full (non-upgrade)
> copies. I use either OS to backup the other OS partition. However it's common
> practice with some users to install mulitple copies of the same OS on the
> same system for reliablity and backup purposes.
>

What the licensing question really boils down to is its
interpretation. To some, "installation" would also imply
the ability "to use" or be "functional". In this sense,
there can be "X" number of installations but only 1 of
all the installations is functioning which, be default,
fulfils the condition of 1 copy of the software that is
running [in the computer].

And also, the EULA permits Windows XP to be running on
computers with a maximum of 2 CPU's, or the dual-CPU units.
And recently, dual-core CPU's are considered as single
CPU's.