System builder licenses...are OEM licenses and used to be called such...until many users began to confuse the use of "OEM" when referencing Windows. Microsoft then changed the name/description to avoid confusion, IMO. System builder licenses are limited to that specific system, just as licenses by HP, Dell, etc. are.
Many of us use "OEM" to refer to the "we assembled it for you systems" which Dell, Lenovo, HP, etc. all provided to many users. The true OEMs are Lenovo, Dell, HP, etc...any "boxmaker" providing a finished product for sale to customers.
Not sure why Win 8 licenses are included in the post above...topic relates to Win 7 and is in Win 7 forum.
As for the plausability of using system builder licenses rather than volume licenses...I've always been under the impression that volume licenses are designed to facilitate the installation of Windows by large enterprises with a fairly large number of systems. Along with simplification, I always thought that doing such also saved enterprises money when compared to the cost of buying individual licenses for each system...and then installing the properl individual licenses on each system.
I could be wrong in my premises but those are based on the small sample that I have experienced in the workplace.
System builder licenses are designed for individuals and small enterprises (who may do custom builds, may not do custom builds), not for enterprises with a fleet of systems.
Not sure what you mean by "refurbishing" a system. In the eyes of Microsoft, a change of motherboard alone is sufficient to deem that a "new" or "different" system, while routine upgrades of RAM or hard drives have no impact on determining licensing compliance. The motherboard is rightfully considered the guts of the system and a change of motherboard mandates MS viewing such as a "new" or "different" system.
Worth A Look
Edited by hamluis, 20 May 2014 - 04:03 PM.