Does Windows 10 need a license?

[Gamer Schnitzel]

Does Windows 10 need a key if you just use it for gaming?

I read a lot of articles saying that you don't but it's hard to believe they'd let you use it endlessly without paying.

I read that you can't change your wallpaper but that doesn't matter to me. Is there any reason to get a key if you just game?

[SansVarnic]

To install and have access to basic operation no.

To have access to all features Yes.

[Master Disaster]

Its a bit of a grey area.

 

Microsoft's EULA states that you must be licensed to use Windows however since Microsoft themselves provide a method of using the OS unlicensed for an indefinite period its hard to imagine that clause would be enforceable in a court if MS ever decided to try and prosecute someone for using the OS unlicensed.

[Demogorgon]

7 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

To install and have access to basic operation no.

To have access to all features Yes.

Can you please tell me what are the features which are blocked?

 

[SansVarnic]

Just now, Demogorgon said:

Can you please tell me what are the features which are blocked?

 

Mostly personalization features e.g. desltop wallpaper, color themes etc. No bitlocker, basic advance settings and such. Permanent water mark showing its unlicensed.

Short answer it will be a slightly limited Windows Home OS. 

[Demogorgon]

9 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Mostly personalization features e.g. desltop wallpaper, color themes etc. No bitlocker, basic advance settings and such. Permanent water mark showing its unlicensed.

Short answer it will be a slightly limited Windows Home OS. 

will the watermark be only on the home screen or will it be on the screen even if I open other applications?

 

[The_russian]

16 minutes ago, Demogorgon said:

will the watermark be only on the home screen or will it be on the screen even if I open other applications?

 

The watermark will be over other applications as well, it’s meant to annoy you so you actually activate it.

[LogicalDrm]

From EULA, if you plan to use it for more than just testing hardware and features, you would be required to by license. At the moment Microsoft has chosen not to enforce this as they have in past. Considering that you can be cheap-ass, there's little to no reason not to get license.

[homeap5]

Legal? No, everywhere on Microsoft website you can read that you may BUY their product and using it without paying is not allowed.

 

But if you're asking is Windows works unactivated then answer is yes. It's the same when you found open car with keys inside and note "please do not stole it". Technically you can drive that car and maybe even owner will not want to call the police or chasing you. Is that legal? No, you still have no rights to use that car, but hey - you may say that you get free car!

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, homeap5 said:

Legal? No, everywhere on Microsoft website you can read that you may BUY their product and using it without paying is not allowed.

 

But if you're asking is Windows works unactivated then answer is yes. It's the same when you found open car with keys inside and note "please do not stole it". Technically you can drive that car and maybe even owner will not want to call the police or chasing you. Is that legal? No, you still have no rights to use that car, but hey - you may say that you get free car!

Not at all, taking a motor vehicle with permission is a separate offence on its own. Its called TWOC (or Taking Without Owners Consent). The owner of the vehicle has 2 choices, admit they allowed you to take the car, which is an offence if you are not entitled to drive it (ie no insurance policy held) and maybe get prosecuted themselves or say you took it without consent and then you will get prosecuted.

 

On the topic of MSes EULA, it wouldn't hold up in court these days. They cannot on one hand say you must be licensed to run their software while on the other hand offering users a means to run said software unactivated indefinitely. That's a contradiction of terms and the second policy would make the first null & void.

[homeap5]

48 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Not at all, taking a motor vehicle with permission is a separate offence on its own. Its called TWOC (or Taking Without Owners Consent). The owner of the vehicle has 2 choices, admit they allowed you to take the car, which is an offence if you are not entitled to drive it (ie no insurance policy held) and maybe get prosecuted themselves or say you took it without consent and then you will get prosecuted.

 

On the topic of MSes EULA, it wouldn't hold up in court these days. They cannot on one hand say you must be licensed to run their software while on the other hand offering users a means to run said software unactivated indefinitely. That's a contradiction of terms and the second policy would make the first null & void.

I'm just taking about being thief or not, no matter if you get 5 years in prison or not. Sure - different things, but it was just an example for better understanding. Piracy is piracy, if you feel good about that it's your choice, but don't say that Windows is freeware or other crap like that. I repeat this may times - if you're just guessing and think you're right, call Microsoft, ask them question and publish their official statement here. After all it's their software and they decide if it's free or not.

[Master Disaster]

18 minutes ago, homeap5 said:

I'm just taking about being thief or not, no matter if you get 5 years in prison or not. Sure - different things, but it was just an example for better understanding. Piracy is piracy, if you feel good about that it's your choice, but don't say that Windows is freeware or other crap like that. I repeat this may times - if you're just guessing and think you're right, call Microsoft, ask them question and publish their official statement here. After all it's their software and they decide if it's free or not.

Nobody is guessing anything, its a very simple and well established principle in contract law.

 

They cannot contractually oblige you to do anything that they themselves provide the means to circumvent. Under contract law they cannot specify that its a breach of terms for you to run Windows without a license while simultaneously offering a method of running Windows without a license.

 

I mean, they can say it, sure. They can also say users must wear yellow socks to run Windows as well. What they say and what they can enforce are not the same thing.

 

If Microsoft ever decided to try and prosecute someone for running Windows 10 with no license they would not have a leg to stand on, they offer the means to do just that and they also removed features present in previous versions of Windows to prevent it. They cannot forbid it and facilitate it.

 

A better example would be EMI offering songs for free download on their website with an EULA saying you can only download them if you bought them previously and then trying to prosecute anybody who actually downloaded them for piracy.

[Gamer Schnitzel]

7 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

From EULA, if you plan to use it for more than just testing hardware and features, you would be required to by license. At the moment Microsoft has chosen not to enforce this as they have in past. Considering that you can be cheap-ass, there's little to no reason not to get license.

This is not completely correct.

Your argument is that one should get a license because they can be a cheap ass. I assume you mean that they can buy a key from key sites that sell for £10 opposed to the £99 that the proper key costs.

The thing is that Microsoft does not want you to buy those. I've previously contacted them to ask about these keys and sites and linked them examples and they said that these are not authorized sellers and that one should not be buying from there. Those are just stolen keys and Microsoft does not see a penny from the sale.

To Microsoft it is the same whether you are buying a cheapass key or using the OS unlicensed as either way you have broken the rules. They could easily just crackdown on those stolen keys instead and render your OS invalid.

[LogicalDrm]

59 minutes ago, Gamer Schnitzel said:

This is not completely correct.

Your argument is that one should get a license because they can be a cheap ass. I assume you mean that they can buy a key from key sites that sell for £10 opposed to the £99 that the proper key costs.

The thing is that Microsoft does not want you to buy those. I've previously contacted them to ask about these keys and sites and linked them examples and they said that these are not authorized sellers and that one should not be buying from there. Those are just stolen keys and Microsoft does not see a penny from the sale.

To Microsoft it is the same whether you are buying a cheapass key or using the OS unlicensed as either way you have broken the rules. They could easily just crackdown on those stolen keys instead and render your OS invalid.

Some of those keys might be stolen, or otherwise acquired by illegal ways. Some are from dead OEMs, of which resale is allowed and has German court decision backing that.

 

My argument is that you can be pirate, cheap-ass, even cheaper-ass or actually good person. I don't condole using key resellers who sell something with seemingly no value. Most of those are from volume packs, targeted to small businesses. MS still gets something, just very little compared to resellers profits. So if you are using Windows as your primary OS, just buy the key. There's little to no reason not to buy one. And if your PC has even one £€$300 part, you can affort full OEM or retail price of it.

 

I have bought Win Vista rescue disc with key since I had laptop with worn-out sticker. That was, IIRC, about what one would expect Vista price being when Win8.1 was the current version.