The discussion was originally spurred by a story in which a user found neither Microsoft nor eMachines would reactivate her OEM license for Windows when she had to replace the motherboard, a situation that has struck many readers as outrageous. "Licensing the software to one particular machine is ridiculous," wrote one reader. "What they need to do is license the software to one individual for use on one PC at a time. This way, I am not pirating the software and, if I choose to upgrade my PC or purchase an entirely new one altogether, I'm still not in violation. This approach, I believe, is logical and accomplishes the advertised purpose of DRMs and EULAs. Of course, it will never be done because the software companies' real goal is to squeeze more money out of users, not protect their product."

Another reader agreed, but thought that licensing per system might be more related to piracy issues. "Probably the main reason they license per hardware instead of per user, is that it is technically easier," the reader wrote. "How do you really have any control over piracy when it is licensed per user? Especially without a phone home feature? So they license it per hardware and attempt to justify it, because that is a simpler solution for them. Sure, it makes their users unhappy, but they like the alternative even less."

But some readers still feel that once the computer buyer accepts a hardware/software bundle and all related EULAs, they can't argue about licensing restrictions. "Microsoft is not the heavy here, nor is the computer manufacturer," wrote one reader. "Microsoft sold the computer vendor a copy of XP at a discount, and the vendor sold the end user the computer and software as a package. The reason the end user purchased this package is price. Not clearly delineated is the EULA is that the computer and software are a bundle, and that when one part fails and the unit is not operational, then everything is toast. That is the risk the end user took in making the price/performance choice. Of course it is easier to blame everybody else when the computer fails, but the fact remains it is the end user's risk, not the OEM manufacturer or Microsoft."

Not surprisingly, many readers took issue with that idea. "That is equivalent to suggesting that if you buy a discount car and something breaks on it and you do not go to the OEM to buy the replacement part, you are then out of luck," wrote one reader. "Imagine a Ford engine artificially disabling itself if it found an aftermarket part in the electrical system, even when it was fully capable of working with that aftermarket part. 'Sorry, sir, but your car will only work if you buy your engine control module from us. We won't reactivate your engine if you buy aftermarket parts.' All of your arguments would seem to apply in that case, so what is different here? The answer? Nothing is different. There are just a lot of apologists for abusive kinds of 'intellectual property' that would be obviously ridiculous if applied to physical items."

A reader who is coming late to this discussion just wrote me with another interesting point. "By no means is this the most extreme use of software licensing to restrict hardware aftermarkets," the reader pointed out, referencing the fact that, as we've seen, Cisco and other manufacturers of high-end devices have often used their software licenses to restrict aftermarket sales of their hardware. "Can you blame the PC manufacturers for wanting to get in on the act? Cisco does it, Microsoft does it, why shouldn't they? Until there is an established notion of what a license means, and what rights it confers on whom, it's only to be expected that companies will attempt to use the uncertainty to their advantage."

So what does a license really mean? What rights should it give the customer and what rights the vendor? And should it stay with the individual user or with a particular machine? Post your comments below or write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com.