I'm not sure what to tell you on this. I consider the current Office
license terms to be a decent compromise between per-user and per-device
licensing. If usage trends change such that most people have different
combinations of desktops and laptos at their disposal, I'm sure that EULA
terms in future versions of Office will adapt.
=?Utf-8?B?YmtvYWNoMg==?= <bkoach2[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
news:3DA49620-7A67-4D7D-BD7A-D5092BC449D9[ at ]microsoft.com:
[Quoted Text] > The Office EULA seems unfair to those of us with more than one pc, but
> no laptop for an allowed second installation, and no business laptop
> to work from home with.
>
> To wit, laptops and pc's are used interchangeably and concurrently
> these days -- some personal (i.e., non-business) user households have
> either one or the other, others have two of one type, or two or the
> other. Not to mention the fact that many people use their corporate
> laptops from both work and home (with additional licenses paid by
> their business) which again is a net disadvantage for users without
> access to a group license and seem curiously to result in multiple
> license purchases going into the MS coffers.
>
> What would make sense and actually seem fair for MS to do is to charge
> a reasonable fee for ancillary licenses (say $100) which could be
> ethically downloaded and installed for up to say two additional
> laptops or PC's.
>
> Is all of this as simple as me being too literal (because I'm so old I
> actually follow rules while everyone under 45 chuckles) in my
> interpretation of the Eula? Should I read "a portable device" to mean
> that because I have carried my formerly upstairs pc to the basement it
> is "portable?"
>
> I know, I know -- nobody will answer the above honestly. Suppose I
> assume that if I get fewer than 10 replys telling me to just "read the
> Eula" I can assume the hypothesis in the above paragraph is correct?
|