Windows 10: Will update Win7>Win10 deactivate second Win7 drive in a Dual boot?

I only mention the "legality" of such actions because I don't want to get banned from the forums for promoting activities that violate the EULA. Although to be illegal it would have to violate copyright law, which I don't think it does. So, I think illegal is improper - violating the EULA as I read it is more proper.

I don't think there is a snowball's chance in the dessert that Microsoft will care enough to deactivate anything.

 

I think the forum would be more than interested in the activities that violate the EULA that work.

 

Hi there

It's NOT ILLEGAL. 100% LEGAL -- The same OS on the same Machine - you can't run both of these at the same time of course.

You might just as well say that having 3 backups (all activated) with the OS in different stages (perhaps some new software etc) is illegal too.

The only thing of course is that the 2nd time you try and install the W10 OS you might not get the system activated --this will activate eventually either by phone or when Ms sorts out the activation process properly for the servers in W10.

There's too much FUD around this issue -- ON THE SAME MACHINE you can install Windows ANY NUMBER OF TIMES LEGALLY (even OEM versions).

What you must not do is run BOTH installations CONCURRENTLY on the same machine - you can only do that in a VM anyway.

You can always revert back to your W7 (or previous OS without problem - TAKE A BACKUP).

Can't see what all the fuss is about -- perfectly OK way of using the OS'es - quite legal so long as they are all done ON THE SAME MACHINE.

Cheers
jimbo

 

What is the difference in that and having the same single license Windows installed on 100 different computers so long as only one of them is turned on at a time?

 

Very good point.

 

Again, though, the EULA will stand up in court because the user voluntarily agreed to abide by it.

 

That's not necessarily true. Until it is tested in court, it can be deemed unenforceable, and if tested in court, it could be found invalid. Agreeing to an EULA as a technicality to access software still doesn't make it law.

 

But it does make it a binding contract. There is a difference between criminal conviction and civil liability. As I said in my post #14, I believe that I have erroneously used the word illegal in the past. The CONTRACT will stand up in court because the user voluntarily agreed to it. Breaking the contract may not be illegal resulting in a criminal conviction, but the contract will hold up in court in a civil case. A prosecutor would have to prove violation of copyright laws to obtain a criminal conviction.

Now, is Microsoft going to go after Joe User in a civil lawsuit because he is running 1 unlicensed copy of Windows 7. Of course not.

 

Even as a contact, it is not necessarily binding, and will not necessarily stand up in court, and precedence testifies to this. Many companies attempt unenforceable policies with EULA jargon that will not stand up in court.

The agreement engaged is not clear cut. A person is saying "I Agree" for a variety of reasons, not all of which are because they actually agree. The agreement requested of an EULA is still subject to reasonable limitations.

I believe that the definition of "device" in the Windows 10 EULA is highly contestable, and that by accepting the Windows 10 EULA a person does not necessarily accept that definition, and that they are very possible justified in not doing so. Personally, I do not accept Microsoft's definition of device, and my Windows 7 EULA confirms that my license is per computer, and not device, defined as being a hardware partition, or single hard drive within my one PC.

 

It's the use of the word "computer" that is debatable. A computer is a machine consisting of an operating system and hardware capable of running that system, in order to perform computations. One operating system - one computer.
Does not matter whether the computer is switched off or on -it is still a computer.

If the same licensed OS software is present twice on the same bit of hardware, whether in a physical disk drive or partition, or on a virtual hard drive, and is capable of running independently of the other, is switched on or off, it is 2 computers.

 

Now that is taking things even a step beyond the narrowing of Microsoft's definition of device, and excessively reaching well beyond common sensibility, and is, simply put, wrong.

 

Please enlighten me.

 

Just read what's already written. You attempted to reduce the definition of "computer" to paralleling "OS", so that the legal stipulations of a license agreement is "one OS may be installed per this license", but they specifically don't say "one OS", but "one computer", or "one device", thereby making the distinction existing by default. I will enlighten you by letting you know that you haven't made an argument that cannot be defended using the on-hand's subject material.

 

No, they're contracts. And contracts can define what constitutes them, and what their language is, within the limits of the law. Defining terminology is pretty standard fare for a contract.

Ok, let's say you're correct. Say the EULA is deemed unenforceable. That doesn't mean what you think it means. It means, that you no longer have a license to use the software, and thus cannot legally use it *AT ALL*.

Most people don't realize that software is governed by copyright. And copyright doesn't give you the right to use it by default. You need a license to use it, and if the license is nullified, it doesn't mean you can use it however you like. It means that Copyright again takes precedence and you have no rights whatsoever.

 

That as a convention is not disputed. The acceptability of the definition for device is.

No, that isn't how things work. An EULA is not deemed unenforceable, unless it is a terrible EULA in totality. But typically only parts of an EULA are deemed unenforceable - such as the definition of "device". And a person who does not accept an EULA does not lose possession of the license they hold to use the software. Things are not as cut and dry in the favour of the corporation, as you seem to have the impression of them being.

A lot of people on this forum don't realize that software licenses are property, subject to property rights, and are owned. Or that when a free upgrade is offered to a license, the license still remains the property of the license-holder. Software is not bought, but licenses to use software are. A person's Windows 7 or 8 or 10 license is their property, and they hold and keep a right to use the software their license according to the conditions of their license.

Microsoft cannot take away rights of use through a free upgrade offer. Such a deal would not be free, would not be an upgrade, would be a transfer of equity and be subject to entirely different laws and practices. Nor can Microsoft legally do such a thing while advertising it as a free upgrade.