[lug] M$ does it again...down under

[Evelyn Mitchell]

On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 09:34:22AM -0600, John Hernandez wrote:
> Agreed, the charity is technically wrong.  However, in situations such as this, I think it behooves Microsoft to turn their heads, because otherwise they risk getting flamed by the press.  They also risk more people turning to Linux and other open source software.  It doesn't take a genius lawyer to realize that they're not getting a dime out of an organization that has no dimes.  Sure, in principle, Microsoft is in the right, but if they're trying to prove a point, they should pick on a less saintly (and more well-funded) organization.  A pat on the back and a lifetime supply of product registration numbers would have been good NO COST PR, as opposed to the bad PR they achieved.

But, I have to agree with Rob here, that it is the choice of the
copyright holder (Microsoft in this case), not the copyright user
to determine whether a fee must be paid to have a copy of an original
work.

That MS chose to enforce their policy rather than to encourage 
the charitable organization to infringe on their rights may be bad
PR, but that's all it is.

Strong copyright law makes the Open Source community's achivements
possible. 

Encouraging others to ignore copyright weakens our position.

The good PR move now would be for Open Source volunteers to
set up a legal, non-MS system for this charity, and publicize it.

Evelyn Mitchell
efm at tummy.com