Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (
More info?)
"Ghostrider" wrote:
>
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>> "Anna" wrote:
>>
>>> "John Schmidt" wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a
>>>> removable hard drive that gets swapped out every week for
>>>> offsite storage. In this case, I will have two of these removable
>>>> hard drives, only one of which will be in use at any time,
>>>> swapping in and out with each other every week.
>>>>
>>>> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I
>>>> deal with XP licensing and authentication? Since there's only
>>>> *one* computer, can I install and authorize a single copy of
>>>> XP (Pro) on both removable hard drives? It seems unfair I
>>>> would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is going to be
>>>> used on the single computer at any given time.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any info.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> "Bob I" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Read the EULA. You are only running one copy on one PC.
>>>>>> Not an issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That is your and my interpretation. Microsoft thinks otherwise.
>>>>> They count the number of installations currently viable, not the
>>>>> number of computers it will be run on.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I thought the reference was to clones on removable drive
>>>> trays, not to Firewire or USB external drives. I don't think MS
>>> objects to "image" files because the restoration process made
>>> to the original HD would wipe out any installation there.
>>>>
>>>> *TimDaniels*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim:
>>> The reference *is* to clones on removable hard drives.
>>
>>
>>
>> See your quote of the original poster above. There
>> is no mention of removable tray or to a "clone" - only
>> to "removable hard drive" (which usually means a
>> USB or FireWire external hard drive).
>>
>>
>>> And there is *no* problem with the user violating the EULA
>>> in this situation when the user simply clones his or her OS to
>>> one of the removable drives for obvious backup purposes.
>>> As long as the cloned drive will be used *only* for restoration
>>> purposes in the same machine that generated the clone,
>>> there's no problem re the EULA. Microsoft reps have made
>>> this clear a number of times in meetings held with end users.
>>
>>
>>
>> I suspect that the "Microsoft reps" that spoke with you
>> were referring to "image" files of an OS, not to bootable
>> clones that reside on an IDE hard drive. There was a
>> very heated and lengthy exchange on this subject about
>> a year ago in the microsoft.public.windowsxp.* NGs in
>> which I was caustically villified by the MVPs and their
>> sycophants for opining that Microsoft's EULA does not
>> *legally* restrict users from making clones of their Windows
>> installations as long as those clones will only be run on the
>> machine where the original installation was made. I likened
>> it to music CD owners making copies of their CDs for
>> personal use and backup.
>>
>> If the MS reps were indeed referring to *bootable* clones
>> and not just restorable image files, please elaborate on
>> those discussions.
>
>
> This happens to be an example of one of those dicey calls in
> which little or no thought was given to such an actual scenario.
> My resident legal guru opines this way: There is no reason why
> the OS needed to be installed on each one of the removable drives
> since their purpose was for weekly backups instead of being a
> operating component with a functioning OS.
Part of being a "backup" is speed of substitution, and
bootable clones are the fastest to substitute for an original
OS that has gone belly up. What the purpose is for a backup
is immaterial. What is substantive is that the clone will be
run in the same PC as the original and that only one installed
OS can run at a time.
> Because of this fact, and each OS can be fully functional when
> plugged into the rest of any similarly configured computer,
"Similarly-configured" is vague. Even Microsoft remains
vague on what changes in the hardware will trigger a
requirement for activation of WinXP. And whether the clone
*can* be run in another computer is immaterial. What is
pertinent is whether it *will* be used in the same or different
computer. In this case, it will only be used in the same
computer.
> then [her opinion] each
> OS in each removable HD should be separately licensed.
Well, what she means is that each *installation* should
be separately licensed, since one HD can contain
many installations. But what she means and what is
grounded in copyright precedent are 2 different things.
> But if the OP were to have provided information that each OS
> in the removable hard drives were also backups of the original
> OS in the first computer, then it is a different scenario.
>
> Her summary: Become a lawyer and learn how to write.
My summary: Become a copyright lawyer and learn
about computers. Too bad if you have to pay the tab,
though.
*TimDaniels*