It sure looked like Paul Thurrott "Chose" to interpret the blog posting the way he did (unless there is some other communication not published.
Regardless, how I read it (where "Hack" was properly used as a "WHAT" and not a "WHOM") and a reminder about what is and is NOT legal, was pretty clear and most welcome.
The blog didn't do a thing to offend a soul and it is very clear that a lot of sites picked up on Paul's work-around for legit users, as a means to get around legal upgrade licensing (after all, the sites said as much and comments to them reflect the same disregard for the rules and EULAs).
When Eric said: “Technically possible” does not always mean legal." he was dead on and in light of the many sites linking to published work-arounds, the only ones they are going to hurt are the innocent and law abiding end users.
I think this one got way out of hand, but I don't think it is Eric or MS that owes the apology here. Paul and others shared observations that read: "Nearly everyone has a qualifying license of Windows" - perhaps they do, but all Eric did was remind people that Windows 7 upgrades needed to be installed on the machine (not another unique one without a license) that WAS qualified.
Finally, if the world we're living in now is this dang sensitive and we have to walk around on egg-shells all the time, then I am dang glad I am one very old man. If no one esle has said it, Eric, "We're sorry for being so, well, sorry..."
|