The Get Windows 10 offer is only for the end user, not the refurbisher. You should provide either the same version that originally came with the PC or the version listed on the new COA. The end user can upgrade to Windows 10 if they choose to. You can install 10 once it becomes available to the refurbisher program. Andre Da Costa is not an MS spokesperson.
Sorry, this information comes directly from The Microsoft Insider Forum. So it's representatives are both recognized as Microsoft support engineers, and others who are valid participants in the new Microsoft Windows Insider Program. I will take the information from the Insider programs vs some of the information which is posted in this forum.
Apropos 'resources', MVP isn't an MS related Official in any form. That Andre DaCosta even dares to propagate MDL tools (namely abbodi1406s ESD decrypter) to the people without mentioning this. Conclusion: at least that 'source' failed. HINT: Instead of clearing points, your threads sofar cause even worse confusion.
As a Microsoft Insider and a Refurbisher, I want my facts to be correct, so I posed the question about this Activation response directly to Microsoft regarding Andre DaCosta's response to my question. I will update the Microsoft response as soon as I receive the answer. I like others want to make sure that Windows 10 activations or any of the software upgrades work like they are suppose to. So far having upgraded with the 10162 Iso and all of the updates thru 10240, all of my Dell Desktops (10) and all of my Dell laptops (15) with Windows 7 Pro and Windows 8 Pro have upgraded just like Microsoft has said, and some of my information came directly from Microsoft systems support engineers.
Would be interesting to know whether Microsoft is aware that 'MVP' is propagating a) a way not supposed by MS and b) a tool from MDL.
To get the correct fact's, the only one way is to get it form the 'Horse's Mouth', in this case Microsoft itself and not any (even related) Forum! As Slave77 wrote, you bring more confusions into debate then clear anything!
I have noted this issue several times of the last few months about what MVP's say as being the word of Microsoft while in reality they do not speak for Microsoft in the least. It is just their opinions. They have useful info but it is not Microsoft speaking at all.
I want to apologize for some of the information I posted in which I thought it was a Microsoft response I was getting from the forum. I received my response from Microsoft this morning and it was explained to me that the forum is a Microsoft website for Insiders, and a lot of information is coming from knowledgeable people such as Andre DeCosta even though he doesn’t work for Microsoft they hold much of his responses to be factual. I was also told that some of the responses will come directly from a Microsoft Engineer and I should watch for their credentials included with the response. Again sorry for my post which I thought was a Microsoft response.
The response quoted in the first post seemed a canned response having little to do with your particular situation as a refurbisher. I must say Bezalel response "feels" more correct to your situation. It would be interesting to hear the more "official" response, i.e. can a refurbisher do the free upgrade before sending out the refurbed units.
Yep, open source if you credit the creators, abbodi1406, forgot how created decrypt cmd but murphy78 compiled first builds iirc. There's a fork that does it propperly out there on github.
That encompasses free distribution of the software and otherwise. The credits thing is supposed to be included in the source code (if he's so much interested in it as one of his rights) and it's not necessarily required to mention the name of the developer or developers in every forum where it's recommended. That's my little understanding of freeware though.
I'd disagree here. In this specific case it's bad attititude of an 'approved (by whom ever) MVP' to promote a) totally inofficial ways of recieving the Uprade and b) to create Homebrew (technicalle seen) with a tool bought to light with some special MDL voodoo, without any notice.
Okay. What I am saying is that it's the usual OSI. It's only in the case of modifying the source code the crediting of the developer or developers is therefore very necessary - vocally or otherwise. I am not saying it is not necessary per se but contemplating on it as though it's the sole important thing and the person in question has committed some unlawful act by not doing that is trivializing the whole argument.