On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:22:22 GMT, Leythos
wrote:


I'm not taking sides, it seemed it would be good, legal or not, to get
an official MS stated position that could be references as FROM A MS
Legal department.

No more good than MS getting an official statement from your
"legal department". Believe it or not I'm not trying to be
mundane or argumentative here, it's simply that one CANNOT
refer to the other party in a contract for what THEY deem a
contact to "mean" after they wrote it and further that point
in time of sale has passed. Their interpretation of it
after the fact is no more valid than anyone else's,
specifically a court's if we want to nit-pick.



I actually don't care one way or the other if anyone does anything,
really, I don't care, I quit caring about 5 months ago. I also don't
make any attempt to sway anyone into thinking one way or another. I have
only mentioned what I've read on the MS site, seen in posted (web) MS
documents, and how I handle it myself.

I can appreciate that and I'm not necessarily trying to
convince you otherwise, but for the benefit of others it is
good to make it known that there is nothing that contacting
MS can do for them. What is not "clear" in a contact cannot
later be pointed out by one of the two parties involved and
be binding on the other.



Since I don't care how you handle it, or Kurt or Alias, and since I'm
only presenting that MS has documents that clarify their position on the
OEM site, there is no argument to be entered into - you can do what you
want.

I agree that in some circumstances those docs may cover
current licensing, when they're referred to in that license
agreement. I was never referred to those and I don't know
anyone who was when talking about single-OEM-system license.