The original and sole intent of the Microsoft licensing was, and remains, to prevent unauthorized use of single-sale software 'packages' (eg, an XP install package cd) on multiple computers.
In my OEM license, the pertinent wordings re hardware are:
'The term "COMPUTER" as used herein shall mean the HARDWARE, if the HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the
computer system with which the HARDWARE operates, if the HARDWARE is a computer system component.'
'The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single integrated product and may only be used with the COMPUTER.'
'You may also need to reactivate the SOFTWARE if you modify your HARDWARE or alter the SOFTWARE.'
Note the use of 'may' in the latter requirement.
When those Eula's were first conceived the majority of people building especially constructed computers were commercial system builders, NOT individuals.
Times have changed and the fact that 12 year olds (and younger) now build and modify their own computers means that the 'may' is applied frequently. I do not believe MS% would have a leg to stand on in court if they tried to deny the right to maintain a license just to change components, and once that door is opened, changing ALL components becomes no different.
Again, the intent is one owner, one computer at a time.
My opinion anyway.
In my OEM license, the pertinent wordings re hardware are:
'The term "COMPUTER" as used herein shall mean the HARDWARE, if the HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the
computer system with which the HARDWARE operates, if the HARDWARE is a computer system component.'
'The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single integrated product and may only be used with the COMPUTER.'
'You may also need to reactivate the SOFTWARE if you modify your HARDWARE or alter the SOFTWARE.'
Note the use of 'may' in the latter requirement.
When those Eula's were first conceived the majority of people building especially constructed computers were commercial system builders, NOT individuals.
Times have changed and the fact that 12 year olds (and younger) now build and modify their own computers means that the 'may' is applied frequently. I do not believe MS% would have a leg to stand on in court if they tried to deny the right to maintain a license just to change components, and once that door is opened, changing ALL components becomes no different.
Again, the intent is one owner, one computer at a time.
My opinion anyway.