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

Delicieuxz said:

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.

Fafhrd said:

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.

Delicieuxz said:

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.

Delicieuxz said:

EULA's are not laws.

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.

Delicieuxz said:

If a section of an EULA is unreasonable in the eyes of a court, it doesn't stand. Microsoft's interpretation of "device" may not be a reasonable interpretation of "device". Most people would understand a device to be the complete system - I.E. a single desktop computer.

What Microsoft has put forth as their preferred interpretation of device is up for question, I think.

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.

Mystere said:

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.

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

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*.

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.

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.

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.

It seems that by including the unambiguous statement:

"You understand that by using the software and services, you ratify this agreement and the linked terms. "

in the Windows 10 EULA, Microsoft is not willing to argue with the user.

Use the software, then by that act, you accept their terms and requirements.

No compromise.

If you disagree, keep using what you have already, if you keep using Windows 10, you explicitly agree to their terms.

A user does not need to disagree on their own behalf, when Microsoft have allowed licenses to be upgraded for Windows 10, and those upgraded licenses already contain in their original terms the rights to allocate their license per computer, not device, nor partition - which itself is beneath a device, as a partition is not a piece of hardware, but allocation within a piece of hardware, and a device is a physical piece of hardware and not an abstract within a piece of hardware.

The original Win 7 / 8 license rights remain, and there truly, legally is not a compromise on that point. Not even if a person didn't want to claim the original rights as their anymore would they disappear. They are the identity of the license.

And as I said, 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.