[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:51:06 +0000 Benjamin A'Lee <bma+lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 07:11:48PM +0000, Paul Sutton wrote: > > > > As I understand it, the situation is that *any* machine that can run > Windows needs to have a Windows licence, even if it doesn't run Windows. > > I assume this is because they believe every machine that can run Windows > will end up running Windows, because who would want to run anything > else? [1] Therefore, all the machines need a licence so that when the > "inevitable" happens they're properly licenced so people don't > accidentally commit piracy (the eighth deadly sin). > > [1] Replace "Windows" with "Debian", and you get my actual feelings on > the matter. :) > Well, well. I had my machine built for me by our local computer shop and I stipulated that I didn't want Windows, so they reduced the price by about £70 (as they didn't install Windows) and I have never paid for any licence of any sort. Why should I, since I have only ever had Linux running on it? But. obviously it *could* run Windows if I was ever stupid enough to install it. So are we (the people who built my machine and I) technically criminals? Neil Winchurst -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html