Specifically, I'm speaking about this question: Windows 10 License in UEFI.
Long story short, OP currently uses Windows with a license provided by his university through DreamSpark. He's going to move it to a new PC and wants to make sure that it's not possible to re-use it on the old one.
The thing is, DreamSpark license forbids installing Windows on computers that don't have COA sticker (so you can only use it as an upgrade), so what OP is trying to do, even if technically feasible, is forbidden by license.
I think that it's a special case of XY problem. OP asks how to Y (move the license), but he assumes that X (installing DreamSpark Windows on his new PC) is possible. Technically X is possible, but he accepted a license agreement which forbids it.
In his comment to my answer another user suggested that the license may not apply in this case and even if it does, a proper answer should answer actual question asked. Here's actual discussion from comments:
Him: This answer essentially says: "To run windows legally, you need a sticker". The question OP asked is: how can I technically transfer my UEFI-contained Windows 10 license to a second computer? In spite of my best effort, I fail to see how this answer the question(s).
Me: I basically wanted to say "even if it's technically possible, it's illegal". I'm aware that this doesn't answer the question, but I believe Super User is about solving actual problems. The problem to be solved here isn't "How to transfer Windows license" as asked in the question, it's "How to transfer DreamSpark Windows license to a OS-less PC" - and answer to that question is "it's illegal".
Him: There is so much wrong in one comment that I don't know what to start with or how to answer politely yet correctly in only 600 characters. To summarize: The Microsoft DreamSpark Direct Subscription Agreement is only enforceable in the US, not under international law, and the scope of superuser isn't the US only; "This isn't legal" isn't a valid technical answer unless OP explicitly asked about the legality of something, period; and if we would observe every single existing law in the world, crypto.stackexchange.com wouldn't even exist.
In my opinion we should apply the same policy we have on pirated software: it's illegal, we don't answer such questions. In this case user wasn't aware of legal issues, so explaining it seems like a reasonable thing to do.
In such cases:
- Is completely ignoring Y and answering that X is illegal appropriate? Should it be a comment?
- Is completely ignoring X and answering potentially illegal Y appropriate?