• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

MS Office XP Std FULL (NFR) + Logitech Cordless Combo - $70.00


Logitech Cordless Keyboard & Mouse with MS Office XP STD (NFR)

According to Microsoft, you must own a license for this software (wink wink). This is what Surplus Computers say:

"Please Note: This is a fully functional original Microsoft CD with installation key code and CD. On the CD it states you must legally own a copy of their license to use this CD. This software installs, fully activatable & registerable like the Commercial Versions you find in the retail stores."
 
OUCH! Just to add insult to injury... it's a LOGITECH keyboard/mouse setup. LOL... I bet ol' Billy would be fumin' if he saw this! 😀
 
Originally posted by: tcsenter

Logitech Cordless Keyboard & Mouse with MS Office XP STD (NFR)

According to Microsoft, you must own a license for this software (wink wink). This is what Surplus Computers say:

"Please Note: This is a fully functional original Microsoft CD with installation key code and CD. On the CD it states you must legally own a copy of their license to use this CD. This software installs, fully activatable & registerable like the Commercial Versions you find in the retail stores."

No license, not legal!
 
? Full CD & Key code, but no "license".... I thought the license was tied to the key code.........hmmmmmmmm
 
Originally posted by: kwo
? Full CD & Key code, but no "license".... I thought the license was tied to the key code.........hmmmmmmmm
Nope, the license is granted through an act of compliance, just like your driver's license. You can physically possess your proof of license but it can be suspended, revoked, or invalid...no?
 
I got mine today. The Logitech mouse is the conventional ball type, not optical, but I don't mind. The Office XP CD is an Academic product (volume license media). Authentic Microsoft CD and perfectly legal if you own a license pack for Office XP Std.
 
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
It's still warez. wink wink.

If you're going to steal, paying for it isn't very bright. OpenOffice is free and legal.


and it works quite nicely 🙂
 
funky security problem associated with secure checkout on site. I've bought from Surplus Comp before buy never had that certificate warning. careful.

3rd for open office. sometimes you gotta have powerpoint tho.
 
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Originally posted by: kwo
? Full CD & Key code, but no "license".... I thought the license was tied to the key code.........hmmmmmmmm
Nope, the license is granted through an act of compliance, just like your driver's license.
Bull. If that were even remotely true, then MS and every other producer of retail-box software, would be guilty of pre-meditated, wide-scale fraud.

If you paid for it, you own it. A "license" in this sense, has no similarity to a "driver's license" whatsoever, and in no way has any inherent "compliance" provisions. If you believe that, you've been brainwashed by too much exposure to MS's EULAs.

The truth is, for tangible, fixed copies of creative works, covered under federal copyright law (at least in the US), then it is unlawful to duplicate, create derivative works, or publically-perform (or broadcast a pre-recorded version of a performance) of those works, generally-speaking.

A "grant of license", in that sense, is just that. The legal copyright owner, has granted you the right to own, derive from, or perform/broadcast that covered work, depending on which specific areas that the grant of license provides for, if it isn't a blanket grant of license. There are no on-going or even pre-existing "compliance" stipulations whatsoever - at least as the actual copyright law goes, that I am aware of.

If the copyright owner, is making a commercial offer, for a "grant of license" for a creative work covered by copyright law, in exchange for payment, then that is exactly what it is. If you pay for it, according to the terms of that (usually implied, for most things) purchase contract, then you own it.

Carefully note - that unless the full terms of a so-called "EULA" (actually, it should be called a "license purchase contract agreement" - not simply "license") were presented as part of the sale, by the seller, and willfully, legally, agreed upon by the puchaser at the time of and as part of the sale, then any additional after-the-fact terms, that the seller may have intended to be imposed by the purchaser, are legally un-enforcable.

Once that purchase transaction is concluded, then you own the license.

An example analogy - you buy a car from a dealer. If the seller comes chasing after you, after you purchase a car from him, then he had no legal rights to demand to sleep with your wife, because of some legalistic-looking document hidden in the in the trunk that claimed that by turning the key in your newly-purchased vehicle, that you were somehow agreeing to, or somehow legally bound, by those "terms". What a crock. Yet MS has hoodwinked quite a few people into believing just that scenario, and that it is somehow legal, or somehow enforcable, just because 95+ percent of the computer software purchasing public doesn't know any better.

...

Now, some software producers, are attempting to move towards a "rental software scheme", and those may contain provisions for prior terminations of licensing, etc.

However, those sorts of agreements, are not a sale, they are a lease. Far too many people confuse the issue of "license" with "lease".

If MS were to offer to the public (or through their agents, their "authorized resellers"), tangible fixed copies of their works, with the appearance of a lawful outright-purchase transaction, but in which it actually constitued something else, such as an on-going lease, then they would be guilty of fraud. The key difference is, in a purchase/sale, the purchaser, after the (often implied) sales contract is concluded, "owns" whatever it was that was sold, and also, legally, can choose to resell it if they wish to. It is now their private property, to do so as they wish. (I'm speaking of the "license" here, not the "work". Copyright law still restricts what one may do with a work, absent any valid "grant of license" to the contrary.)

Originally posted by: tcsenter
You can physically possess your proof of license but it can be suspended, revoked, or invalid...no?
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues of copyright law and the sale of property to private parties.

If your "license granted via compliance" theory was even remotely close to something accurate, then I wouldn't even ever have to pay for the software, no? All I would have to do would be to "comply", whatever that might mean.

Oh, wait, yes, MS is a commercial software producer, they depend on people paying for their software for their continued financial success and corporate existance, and that the act of customers paying for licenses to own a fixed, tangible copy of their software, is a sale, and thus the goods sold (the license), are the property of the purchaser.

Also, you don't "purchase" your driver's license from the state. If you did, then they couldn't revoke it or take it back. It would be completely yours. Legally, they would be forced to offer "just compensation" to take it back from you. This is also why, for a purchased license, software companies cannot legally simply "invalidate" it, and attempt to shut down or interfere with your private use of that software. That's why MS (among others), pushed for the passage of "UCTIA" laws in many states, so that they would have the statutory legal right to remotely-disable someone's software - even with a legally valid purchased grant of license. That's legalized outright theft, btw, and thankfully those laws only passed in a few states.

Ford doesn't have the right to steal your car that you paid good money for, just because they feel that you haven't bought enough additional Ford-made parts (under the assumption that you are getting your vehicle serviced at somewhere other than a "factory-authorized Ford repair center"), or due to whatever corporate whim they might decide. That's not how the law works, here in America, although I might start having to call this place, "MSopotamia" instead, seeing as how they are seemingly able to warp the previously well-honed (for fairness) civil laws in their egregious favor lately.
 
Originally posted by: tcsenter
I got mine today. The Logitech mouse is the conventional ball type, not optical, but I don't mind. The Office XP CD is an Academic product (volume license media). Authentic Microsoft CD and perfectly legal if you own a license pack for Office XP Std.
Oh, so it's just pre-pressed VLK media, intended for installation/use under the terms of an academic site license then? Most of us don't have a site-license like that, I'm sure.

You should change the title to something mentioning "media-only" and "VLK". The current "MS Office XP Std FULL (NFR)" title implies that it does include a license.
 
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: tcsenter
I got mine today. The Logitech mouse is the conventional ball type, not optical, but I don't mind. The Office XP CD is an Academic product (volume license media). Authentic Microsoft CD and perfectly legal if you own a license pack for Office XP Std.
Oh, so it's just pre-pressed VLK media, intended for installation/use under the terms of an academic site license then? Most of us don't have a site-license like that, I'm sure.

You should change the title to something mentioning "media-only" and "VLK". The current "MS Office XP Std FULL (NFR)" title implies that it does include a license.

If it is Not For Resale, then they simply can't resale the software. Kind of stupid to put something up for sale that clearly says NFR.

 
My God Larry you can pack more senseless and moronic rambling into a 3" x 5" space and never actually make a single meaningful point than anyone I've ever seen nor probably ever will see again.

Again, a software license is granted through an act of compliance with the terms of the EULA, or in the case of resellers of Microsoft products, the System Builder License and Distribution Agreements. We've been over this again and again.

You can own a COA and it is not a valid license. In fact, separating a COA from its accompanying product or package and distributing it is now illegal. A COA is nothing more than "proof" of license, exactly like the document you are given when you recieve a driver's license. The document is proof of license, it does not constitute "THE" license (i.e. the right or privilege) to operate a motor vehicle. This is why police do not accept the document on its face but will actually run a check to see whether the license has been revoked or suspended. The document (proof of license) is not THE license, it is a document. A license is a privilege or right, not a piece of paper.

A Certificate of Authenticity 'certifies' the 'authenticity' of the product with which the COA is packaged or distributed. If a COA is purchased alone, it is accompanied by nothing, and therefore certifies the authenticity of nothing.

I don't give a rat's ass how people purchase airplanes or luggage or motorcycle batteries or Pacific Halibut, none of those things are software, are not granted copyright protection, nor do they fall under applicable federal laws that make a software publisher's licensing terms and stipulations legally binding.

And BTW, whether or not you acquire a software product such as Windows XP or Office XP legally, the moment you fail to comply with or violate the EULA, your rights to use (i.e. your license) is in fact null and void.
 
yeah. microsoft has cd's that come without licenses.
what i don't understand, though, is why this hasn't been locked. does AT support such "deals"?
 
Originally posted by: tcsenter
My God Larry you can pack more senseless and moronic rambling into a 3" x 5" space and never actually make a single meaningful point than anyone I've ever seen nor probably ever will see again.
"Senseless and Moronic", eh? Funny how most movie DVDs, on the "FBI warning" screen, clearly state the very same things that I mentioned in that post, in regards to what copyright law prohibits. Obviously though, I must be wrong about that - along with every commercial publisher of movie DVDs. :roll:
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Again, a software license is granted through an act of compliance with the terms of the EULA, or in the case of resellers of Microsoft products, the System Builder License and Distribution Agreements. We've been over this again and again.
So if I comply with the EULA, MS will send me software for free? I don't have to pay for it? (Who is rambling moronically now?)
The "grant of license" is sold to me, because I paid for it. Duh. If something is sold to me, there are no ongoing "compliance" terms - copyright law doesn't specify any. Nor do the basic tenet of property law allow for my paid-for property to be stolen back, due to some nebulous "non-compliance". (A lease - and not an actual purchase, *does* allow for the stipulation of ongoing terms - because one doesn't actually own the property (in this case, it would be the license, or it could be a car, etc.) until it is fully paid-for, or the lease expires and ownership of the property reverts to the original owner. Again, people that don't understand the distinction between "purchase of a (grant of) license" and "lease" often get the concepts confused.)

If you somehow believe otherwise, then you need to do some more research on these issues.

Originally posted by: tcsenter
You can own a COA and it is not a valid license. In fact, separating a COA from its accompanying product or package and distributing it is now illegal.
You're right that a COA is not a license, but what does a COA have to do with any of this? I was talking about the purchase of a software license. You're talking about some piece of pretty paper printed by a corporation, with nebulous value or meaning to it.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
A COA is nothing more than "proof" of license, exactly like the document you are given when you recieve a driver's license. The document is proof of license, it does not constitute "THE" license (i.e. the right or privilege) to operate a motor vehicle. This is why police do not accept the document on its face but will actually run a check to see whether the license has been revoked or suspended. The document (proof of license) is not THE license, it is a document. A license is a privilege or right, not a piece of paper.
Why you keep going on about a driver's license in this context is beyond me. The comparison is meaningless. The proper context is property and contract law here, and copyright law.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
A Certificate of Authenticity 'certifies' the 'authenticity' of the product with which the COA is packaged or distributed. If a COA is purchased alone, it is accompanied by nothing, and therefore certifies the authenticity of nothing.
Again, where do COAs figure into this discussion? You're right that a COA "certifies nothing". It's a pretty piece of paper, printed by some company. (Actually, only MS, because they made up the whole concept. No other software company, yet, or used to, have any sort of such thing. There is no legal force behind it whatsoever, and is therefore meaningless, except to Microsoft.)
Originally posted by: tcsenter
I don't give a rat's ass how people purchase airplanes or luggage or motorcycle batteries or Pacific Halibut, none of those things are software, are not granted copyright protection, nor do they fall under applicable federal laws that make a software publisher's licensing terms and stipulations legally binding.
Please provide proof of those supposed federal laws that make a software publisher's licensing terms and stipulations legally binding, absent proper legal execution of a civil contract between two private parties. The UCTIA tried to, and failed to be passed in most of the states in which it was proposed. Why? Because it's not the law. (And if it already was, why would MS have pushed for explicitly making EULAs binding? That would strongly infer that they were, and always have been, on severely shaky legal ground with EULAs.)

If MS, or their "authorized resellers", wanted the purchasers of licenses to their software, to be lawfully, legally bound into the terms of a software license purchase contract, then they must obtain the provable legal agreement by the purchaser, before that purchase contract is concluded. That's a perfectly lawful and legally-enforcable method. What that would entail, would be that the customer would be required to actually *legally sign* a software license agreement, that would be presented to them before the purchase transaction, and if the customer refused that step, then MS or their agent (the store) would otherwise have to refuse to hand over the goods (retail shrink-wrap software), and otherwise refuse the transaction, should the customer not agree to the terms, up-front.

That's the only way that it would be legitimate, and legally-enforcable... absent judicial misconduct of course.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
And BTW, whether or not you acquire a software product such as Windows XP or Office XP legally, the moment you fail to comply with or violate the EULA, your rights to use (i.e. your license) is in fact null and void.
That shows how much you (don't) know about copyright law - it does not restrict the rights of a private party to "use" the work in question, if they have the legal right of ownership of a tangible, fixed copy of the work. (Either through being the copyright owner themselves - for self-created works, for example, or for the legal *ownership* of a license to that work.) IOW - a book or music CD publisher doesn't have the right, due to copyright law, to restrict you to only reading the book in one room in the house, and otherwise having to puchase an additional copy of the book if you choose to read it in a different room. Likewise to listen to music CDs. It would be ludicrous to suggest that they have that right. So why then, do you continue to somehow believe that MS has that right? Just because MS says they do? If it's not in the law - then it's not legally enforceable. Period. Sheeple's behavior otherwise notwithstanding.

(This was in fact tested in the courts prior, in Nintendo vs. Blockbuster. Nintendo tried to claim that Blockbuster was breaking the law, by renting NES games, when Nintendo claimed in the back of their booklets that "rental is prohibited". Nintendo lost that claim, because it wasn't supported by the law. However, Blockbuster did lose on one other claim - because they were photocopying the original instruction booklets included with the games, they lost, because that was a violation of the law.)

Edited to add another point of reply:
Originally posted by: tcsenter
And BTW, whether or not you acquire a software product such as Windows XP or Office XP legally, the moment you fail to comply with or violate the EULA, your rights to use (i.e. your license) is in fact null and void.
Btw, if that were somehow true, then that would imply, that what is being paid for by the customer, is a "lease", not a "sale", because that would really be the the only legal manner in which MS could enforce ongoing restriction on the actual usage of their software products - since copyright law itself does not - and would in fact make MS and their agents guilty of wide-spread, pre-meditated fraud, as I said. I don't believe that to be the case. MS would have a lot more to lose, legally-speaking, if they did that.
 
I am getting sick and God damned tired of doing all the intellectual work and playing Daddy to you, Larry. Every single one of our debates goes something like this...

I spend two f-cking hours of my time researching and providing all relevant documentation, make you look like an idiot, and you never say "Oh, my bad, thanks for educating me" then keep your mouth shut about things you clearly know nothing about. Instead, you slink off without comment, hide for a month or two, then we repeat the process again.

Don't you ever get tired of getting your ass handed to you?


What is Software Licensing?

Allowing an individual or group to use a piece of software. Nearly all applications are licensed rather than sold. There are a variety of different types of software licenses. Some are based on the number machines on which the licensed program can run whereas others are based on the number of users that can use the program. Most personal computer software licenses allow you to run the program on only one machine and to make copies of the software only for backup purposes. Some licenses also allow you to run the program on different computers as long as you don't use the copies simultaneously.


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


What is a software license?

Software is protected by copyright law, which states that a product cannot be copied without the permission of the copyright holder. A software license grants you the legal right to use a piece of software. You only own the license to use that piece of software - not the software itself.

Your End-User License Agreement is a contract between you and Microsoft (or the original equipment manufacturer if your software was preinstalled), describing how you can use the software.


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


It Pays To Read License Agreements


You may wonder whether these licenses are legal. Most of them do hold up in court as long as they are reasonably clear, according to Parry Aftab, an attorney specializing in Internet privacy and security law (www.aftab.com). "The courts have said that if you click on something saying 'I agree' then it's legal consent."


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


A User's Guide to EULAs
By Annalee Newitz
Electric Frontier Foundation


We've all seen them ? windows that pop up before you install a new piece of software, full of legalese. To complete the install, you have to scroll through 60 screens of dense text and then click an "I Agree" button. Sometimes you don't even have to scroll through to click the button. Other times, there is no button because merely opening your new gadget means that you've "agreed" to the chunk of legalese.

They're called End User License Agreements, or EULAs. Sometimes referred to as "shrinkwrap" or "click-through" agreements, they are efforts to bind consumers legally to a number of strict terms ? and yet you never sign your name. Frequently, you aren't even able to see a EULA until after you've purchased the item it covers.

Although there has been some controversy over whether these agreements are enforceable, several courts have upheld their legitimacy.


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


National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) - UCITA and Software Licensing FAQ

Q: WHAT IS A LICENSE?

A: A license is simply a contract. It gives the licensee rights to use information rights owned by somebody else. Licenses allow transactions to fit the rights and the price for information to the interests of the licensee. A consumer may license the right to use a database for consumer purposes for $5; a business might license the right to use the same database for commercial purposes for $10,000.


Q: DOES UCITA RADICALLY CHANGE ENFORCEMENT OF STANDARD FORM LICENSES?

A: No. Reported court decisions today enforce shrink-wrap, onscreen and other forms of modern automated contracting, if they comply with contract concepts similar to UCITA and, indeed, some cases allow contract formation without the protections that UCITA creates. An allegation that these contracts would be unenforceable without UCITA is simply wrong.


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


What Have You Signed Away Today?

Consider the case of M.A. Mortenson, a contracting firm that sued Timberline Software of Oregon; the suit alleged that defects in a Timberline bid-preparation program caused Mortenson to make a $1.95 million bidding error.

Last year, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that Timberline was not liable for the buggy program--despite the fact the company knew about the bug before putting the software on the market. The reason: Timberline's EULA exempted the company from responsibility "for any damages of any type" resulting from use of its products. [Note: Washington is not a UCITA state]


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


Just-In-Time Click-Through Agreements: Facilitating User Understanding and Confirming Informed, Unambiguous Consent


The most common method for supporting consent in computer applications is a "user agreement". When you have installed new software on your computer, or signed-up for an Internet service, you have undoubtedly seen an interface screen that presents a User Agreement or Terms of Service. In order to continue, you have had to click on an "I Agree" button or an equivalent label. These interface screens are commonly called "click-through agreements" because the users must click through the screen to get to the software or service being offered [5]. (An alternative label is "click-wrap agreement", in parallel to more traditional "shrink-wrap" agreements attached to software packaging.) These agreement screens are an attempt to provide the electronic equivalent of a signed user agreement or service contract [4]. By clicking on the "Agree" button, the user is confirming their understanding of the agreement and indicating consent to any terms or conditions specified in the accompanying text.

The legality of these click-through screens in forming the basis of a legal agreement or contract has been established...


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


Click Wrap Agreements - Enforceable Contracts or Wasted Words?


THE LATER CASES

More recent cases have held that once the consumer has the opportunity to read the terms of the license agreement, even if that chance is after he or she purchased the software, use of the product equals acceptance of the terms. In other words, giving the consumer a fair, albeit limited, opportunity to return the product strikes a happy medium between consumer and industry protection.

In ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, the court held that "shrink-wrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general."


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


Ibid


Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc. also found shrink-wrap agreements enforceable. This case deals with the enforceability of preprinted form contracts shipped with goods ordered by telephone.

The court held that the Hills had to follow the terms set forth in the licensing agreement because the Hills accepted those terms by using the computer. The court said that although the Hills did not read the agreement, "[a] contract need not be read to be effective; people who accept take the risk that the unread terms may in retrospect prove unwelcome." This case is seen as a clear victory for Gateway and shrink-wrap agreements.


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


Ibid


Another case in which the court found a click-wrap agreement to be valid and enforceable was the Storm Impact v. Software of the Month Club case. Here, a federal district court judge held that the express reservation of rights displayed in a user's click-wrap agreement on a computer screen was valid and enforceable.


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


Ibid


One of the more recent click-wrap cases is Caspi v. Microsoft Network, L.L.C. In this case, the plaintiff was prompted to view multiple computer screens of information, including the membership agreement containing the forum selection clause before subscribing to Microsoft's online service. The potential members had the option to click on "I agree" or "I don't agree," depending on whether or not they agreed to the terms of the agreement. The court refused to hold the forum selection clause unenforceable on the grounds that if it did, the entire agreement would be invalidated, since all provisions were presented in the same manner.


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


Ibid


In direct line with Caspi came the most recent click-wrap cases that include In Re Realnetworks, Inc. and American Eyewear v. Peeper's Sunglasses. In the first of the cases, In Re Realnetworks, Inc., the plaintiffs brought a claim alleging trespass to property and privacy regarding their use of the defendant's computer network. The plaintiffs claimed that the license agreement did not constitute a "writing" because the arbitration clause should be interpreted narrowly in favor of the plaintiffs, and that the arbitration clause should be unenforceable because it would be unconscionable to decide otherwise. The court used traditional contract law and rules of civil procedure to resolve the issues of the case. The court held that the arbitration clause in the defendant's click-wrap agreement was enforceable because words in a contract are interpreted by their plain meaning. Furthermore, the arbitration clause was not buried in fine print that would normally render such a clause unenforceable, but instead, was presented in a manner that gave a user ample opportunity to read and understand the provisions within the contract.


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


Ecommerce: An Introduction, Transactions


In the landmark ProCD case, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the defendant was bound by the terms of the shrink-wrapped license prohibiting commercial use of the software. The license was only inside the box but there was a notice on outside referring to the license. The Court held that by using the software after opening the shrink wrap, the defendant had manifested assent to the contract as is required under the Uniform Commercial Code.

This precedent has been extended to the Internet and clickwraps in a series of cases. In Hotmail Corporation v. Van Money Pie, Inc. (Website) (Hotmail) the court upheld the validity of a clickwrap agreement that prohibited the use of Hotmail e-mail accounts for transmitting unsolicited mass e-mail. In Groff v. America Online, Inc. (AOL) (Website) (Groff) the court upheld a forum selection clause contained within AOL's clickwrap user agreement. See also Caspi v. The Microsoft Network (Website) (Caspi) (upholding forum selection clause in Microsoft Network subscriber agreement which the user was required to click "I agree" next to the scrollable window containing the agreement.)

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


NVIDIA Software EULA

GRANT OF LICENSE

2.1 Rights and Limitations of Grant. NVIDIA hereby grants Customer the following non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the SOFTWARE, with the following limitations...


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


Cisco SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT


BY CLICKING ON THE "ACCEPT" BUTTON, OPENING THE PACKAGE, DOWNLOADING THE PRODUCT, OR USING THE EQUIPMENT THAT CONTAINS THIS PRODUCT, YOU ARE CONSENTING TO BE BOUND BY THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, CLICK THE "DO NOT ACCEPT" BUTTON AND THE INSTALLATION PROCESS WILL NOT CONTINUE, RETURN THE PRODUCT TO THE PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, OR DO NOT DOWNLOAD THE PRODUCT.

Single User License Grant: Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco") and its suppliers grant to Customer ("Customer") a nonexclusive and nontransferable license to use the Cisco software ("Software") in object code form solely on a single central processing unit owned or leased by Customer or otherwise embedded in equipment provided by Cisco.

Multiple-Users License Grant: Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco") and its suppliers grant to Customer ("Customer") a nonexclusive and nontransferable license to use the Cisco software ("Software") in object code form...


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


MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP HOME EDITION (RETAIL) END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT


IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software that accompanies this EULA, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation, and Internet-based services ("Software"). An amendment or addendum to this EULA may accompany the software. YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE.

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

I turned-up about 20 more citations if you need them. Even the Electronic Frontier Foundation says you're wrong and I'm right.

Questions?
 
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Questions?

Yeah, you missed my question. Is this legal? I'm not reading all that crap and if I did I would have to read it quite a few times to understand your point (except for something about Larry's ass). 😉

But is it legal? yes/no is all I'm looking for 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Jaxidian
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Questions?

Yeah, you missed my question. Is this legal? I'm not reading all that crap and if I did I would have to read it quite a few times to understand your point (except for something about Larry's ass). 😉

But is it legal? yes/no is all I'm looking for 🙂
Get it!
Bottom line is, you'll be ok. No worries
Simply read below until you feel good about buying it and installing it on yerPC. 😀😀😀
"Please Note: This is a fully functional original Microsoft CD with installation key code and CD. On the CD it states you must legally own a copy of their license to use this CD. This software installs, fully activatable & registerable like the Commercial Versions you find in the retail stores."
 
Back
Top