[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 18 Jan 2008, at 11:45, Neil Winchurst wrote: > 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 > I think we're missing the point guys, this is only applicable when schools have signed up to the contract, with this proviso, with MS. It's the bureaucrats that are at fault. They didn't read the contract, duh. So you are safe Neil, because you've not signed a contract with MS, you wise person you. Clare -- 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