From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_03AB_01C742E6.A5813C50
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   I don't know about other vendors but nothing is tied to the HD serial =
number.  The serial number is one factor in recognizing if the software =
has been copied to another computer.  So what?  There is no lock.  You =
are free to install the software according to the license.

   Your claimed end result is still bogus and you are making no attempt =
to support it with facts.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message =
news:45bced48$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  Ok good, go with that quote. I was talking about (in the case of MS) =
vista=20
  and in the case of other vendors the mention of an app that was tying =
itself=20
  to a HD serial number.

  The whole thing is being motivated by the desire of the software and =
content=20
  industries to have more and more restrictive options for copy =
protection and=20
  licensing use. In the end this is going to hurt Microsoft because it =
will=20
  lead to buying new software when you buy a new computer. This is =
microsoft's=20
  current goal with vista and other vendors aren't going to be able to =
resist=20
  it either. It means more money for them, how could they possibly not =
do it?

  The end result is throw your OS and apps away with your computer, this =

  should be a huge concern for MS because it will result in no =
motivation to=20
  stick with an OS in order to not have to buy apps all over again. That =
was=20
  my point, you are free to claim it's not happening and since it's just =
at=20
  the beginning I'll agree that is arguable, make the assumption that it =
is=20
  happening and then tell me I'm wrong about where it will lead. That's =
really=20
  the discussion I was trying to have with you, I see it as unavoidable =
unless=20
  software moves to a service model which I don't think is a workable =
model.

  Geo.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:45bcdd4c{at}w3.nls.net...
     I removed too much.  You're quote isn't relevant.  The one that is =
that=20
  triggered the discussion is

      You know, tying apps to the hardware could be a huge negative for =
MS. I
    mean
      suddenly it's not an issue of being able to keep your old software =
so=20
  you
      aren't anchored to a platform or OS anymore. Kinda makes =
investment in
      applications a non-factor when considering a hardware upgrade.

  It seems you are trying to change the discussion from this to the=20
  independent topic of licensing which for Microsoft and other vendors =
often=20
  limits the number of computers on which the software may be =
simultaneously=20
  installed.  In the case of Office System 2007 that may be two for a =
normal=20
  copy.  I checked my Outlook license which contains

    2.  INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS.  Before you use the software under =
a=20
  license, you must assign that license to one device.  That device is =
the=20
  "licensed device."  A hardware partition or blade is considered to be =
a=20
  separate device.
    a. Licensed Device.  You may install and use one copy of the =
software on=20
  the licensed device.
    b. Portable Device.  You may install another copy on a portable =
device for=20
  use by the single primary user of the licensed device.

  I expect volume and other licenses have other limits.  None of this is =

  locking applications to hardware.  You are free to move the software =
among=20
  computers as the license allows.

  So again, if you have some actual instances of locking by Microsoft =
and can=20
  support your claims that Microsoft is helping ISVs to lock their=20
  applications, please speak up.  Otherwise, stop making up crap and =
using it=20
  to try to support your bogus claims.

  Rich


------=_NextPart_000_03AB_01C742E6.A5813C50
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   I don't
know about other =
vendors but=20
nothing is tied to the HD serial number.  The serial number is one
= factor=20
in recognizing if the software has been copied to another = computer.  So=20
what?  There is no lock.  You are free to install the software =

according to the license.
 
   Your
claimed end result is =
still bogus=20
and you are making no attempt to support it with facts.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:45bced48$1{at}w3.nls.net...Ok=20
  good, go with that quote. I was talking about (in the case of MS) =
vista=20
  and in the case of other vendors the mention of an app that was =
tying=20
  itself to a HD serial number.The whole
thing is being =
motivated by=20
  the desire of the software and content industries to have more and =
more=20
  restrictive options for copy protection and licensing use. In the =
end this=20
  is going to hurt Microsoft because it will lead to buying new =
software=20
  when you buy a new computer. This is microsoft's current goal with =
vista=20
  and other vendors aren't going to be able to resist it either. It =
means=20
  more money for them, how could they possibly not do
it?The end =
result=20
  is throw your OS and apps away with your computer, this should be =
a huge=20
  concern for MS because it will result in no motivation to stick =
with an OS=20
  in order to not have to buy apps all over again. That was my =
point, you=20
  are free to claim it's not happening and since it's just at the =
beginning=20
  I'll agree that is arguable, make the assumption that it is =
happening and=20
  then tell me I'm wrong about where it will lead. That's really the =

  discussion I was trying to have with you, I see it as unavoidable =
unless=20
  software moves to a service model which I don't think is a =
workable=20
  model.Geo."Rich"
<{at}> wrote in message news:45bcdd4c{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; =20
  I removed too much.  You're quote isn't relevant.  The one =
that is=20
  that triggered the discussion
is    You =
know, tying=20
  apps to the hardware could be a huge negative for MS. I =20
  mean    suddenly it's not an issue
of being able to =
keep=20
  your old software so
you    aren't anchored to =
a=20
  platform or OS anymore. Kinda makes investment =
in   =20
  applications a non-factor when considering a hardware =
upgrade.It seems=20
  you are trying to change the discussion from this to the =
independent topic=20
  of licensing which for Microsoft and other vendors often limits =
the number=20
  of computers on which the software may be simultaneously =
installed. =20
  In the case of Office System 2007 that may be two for a normal =
copy. =20
  I checked my Outlook license which contains 
2. =20
  INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS.  Before you use the software under a =

  license, you must assign that license to one device.  That =
device is=20
  the "licensed device."  A hardware partition
or blade is =
considered=20
  to be a separate device.  a. Licensed
Device.  You =
may=20
  install and use one copy of the software on the licensed =
device. =20
  b. Portable Device.  You may install another copy on a portable =
device=20
  for use by the single primary user of the licensed =
device.I expect=20
  volume and other licenses have other limits.  None of this is =
locking=20
  applications to hardware.  You are free to move the software =
among=20
  computers as the license allows.So again,
if you have some =
actual=20
  instances of locking by Microsoft and can support your claims that =

  Microsoft is helping ISVs to lock their applications, please speak =

  up.  Otherwise, stop making up crap and using it to try to =
support=20
  your bogus
claims.Rich

------=_NextPart_000_03AB_01C742E6.A5813C50--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5