• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Re: win7 32/64 bit dual boot same machine

C

cj@heaven.org

Flightless Bird
<snip>
>Alternative Versions. The software may include more than one version,
>such as 32-bit and 64-bit. You may install and use only one version at one
>time.
>
>[There's the clincher. it is forbidden in the EULA.]
>
>Oh well I guess I can't try it, but I think it will work.

IF THAT IS THE EXACT VERBAGE it's very poorly worded. It does not say you may only install one version.
it says you may install AND ONLY USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME.

If it said you may install ONE version, it would be different. But it does not say that. Therefore based on that verbage,
IMO, that gives you the right to install both and then use USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME. Geesh it's not even possible to use both versions at one time.
 
J

Joel

Flightless Bird
cj@heaven.org <CaptainJack> wrote:

>>Alternative Versions. The software may include more than one version,
>>such as 32-bit and 64-bit. You may install and use only one version at one
>>time.
>
>IF THAT IS THE EXACT VERBAGE it's very poorly worded. It does not say you may only install one version.
>it says you may install AND ONLY USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME.
>
>If it said you may install ONE version, it would be different. But it does not say that. Therefore based on that verbage,
>IMO, that gives you the right to install both and then use USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME. Geesh it's not even possible to use both versions at one time.


It says both individual things in one phrase. Perhaps it could be
written in an easier form to understand for non-lawyers, but in any
event, it means both that you can only install and use one or the
other at one time.

--
Joel Crump
 
A

Andrew

Flightless Bird
"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5dahr5lln5ncol9e8m38okg6sdo0os63n2@4ax.com...
> cj@heaven.org <CaptainJack> wrote:
>
>>>Alternative Versions. The software may include more than one version,
>>>such as 32-bit and 64-bit. You may install and use only one version at
>>>one
>>>time.
>>
>>IF THAT IS THE EXACT VERBAGE it's very poorly worded. It does not say you
>>may only install one version.
>>it says you may install AND ONLY USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME.
>>
>>If it said you may install ONE version, it would be different. But it does
>>not say that. Therefore based on that verbage,
>>IMO, that gives you the right to install both and then use USE ONE VERSION
>>AT ONE TIME. Geesh it's not even possible to use both versions at one
>>time.
>
>
> It says both individual things in one phrase. Perhaps it could be
> written in an easier form to understand for non-lawyers, but in any
> event, it means both that you can only install and use one or the
> other at one time.
>
Yeah that's the exact verbage from the site. It does tell you that you can
only install 64 or 32 higher up in the EULA.

http://download.microsoft.com/Documents/UseTerms/Windows
7_Ultimate_English_6b5dbb25-2871-4073-904d-9f2d3a9a0497.pdf

It forbids you from running a 64 bit machine and using the 32 bit one in a
VM which is how most users would probably try it.

--
Andrew
 
C

cj@heaven.org

Flightless Bird
>>>Alternative Versions. The software may include more than one version,
>>>such as 32-bit and 64-bit. You may install and use only one version at one
>>>time.
>>
>>IF THAT IS THE EXACT VERBAGE it's very poorly worded. It does not say you may only install one version.
>>it says you may install AND ONLY USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME.
>>
>>If it said you may install ONE version, it would be different. But it does not say that. Therefore based on that verbage,
>>IMO, that gives you the right to install both and then use USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME. Geesh it's not even possible to use both versions at one time.


>It says both individual things in one phrase. Perhaps it could be
>written in an easier form to understand for non-lawyers, but in any
>event, it means both that you can only install and use one or the
>other at one time.

>--
>Joel Crump

Most people are not lawyers. None the less, I don't see any verbage that requires a lawyer.
Your interpretation is your opinion and while it may well be correct, as written,
it can also be interepeted as I stated. If MS can't write a EULA more clearly, how can they possibly
expect people to understand intent?
 
J

Joel

Flightless Bird
cj@heaven.org <CaptainJack> wrote:

>>It says both individual things in one phrase. Perhaps it could be
>>written in an easier form to understand for non-lawyers, but in any
>>event, it means both that you can only install and use one or the
>>other at one time.
>
>Most people are not lawyers. None the less, I don't see any verbage that requires a lawyer.
>Your interpretation is your opinion and while it may well be correct, as written,
>it can also be interepeted as I stated. If MS can't write a EULA more clearly, how can they possibly
>expect people to understand intent?


I would tend to agree they should be as clear as they can. However,
my concern is with making sure people understand what the harm would
be if they were to violate the license agreement. Fair or not,
understandable or not, it's their headache if they let their key get
marked as being misused.

--
Joel Crump
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 11:01:17 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

>cj@heaven.org <CaptainJack> wrote:
>
>>>Alternative Versions. The software may include more than one version,
>>>such as 32-bit and 64-bit. You may install and use only one version at one
>>>time.
>>
>>IF THAT IS THE EXACT VERBAGE it's very poorly worded. It does not say you may only install one version.
>>it says you may install AND ONLY USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME.
>>
>>If it said you may install ONE version, it would be different. But it does not say that. Therefore based on that verbage,
>>IMO, that gives you the right to install both and then use USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME. Geesh it's not even possible to use both versions at one time.
>
>
>It says both individual things in one phrase. Perhaps it could be
>written in an easier form to understand for non-lawyers, but in any
>event, it means both that you can only install and use one or the
>other at one time.

No offense, but I never take legal advice from random Usenet postings
and recommend others do likewise. Relying on someone I don't know to
tell me what something means seems like a recipe for failure.
 
J

Joel

Flightless Bird
Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>No offense, but I never take legal advice from random Usenet postings
>and recommend others do likewise. Relying on someone I don't know to
>tell me what something means seems like a recipe for failure.


Ideally, no one would have taken action based on any of these
posts - but I believe, in case anyone might, that it's best to put it
in perspective as best I can, and hope people make a wise decision, in
particular by looking at the opposing viewpoints and investigating it
properly for themselves.

--
Joel Crump
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top