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

[Ferdinand Schmid]

Glenn Murray wrote:
> 
> My two cents: I think John is on the right track here, but actually
> does not go far enough.  In my point of view:
> 
> Technically, the charity is correct.
> 
> In principle, Microsoft is wrong.
> 
> The suggestion to provide a free alternative is excellent, but as
> other posts point out, perhaps unfeasible.

I think open source is a feasible option.  It just requires some
thought.  Windows on a 386/486 wasn't as fast or capable as new versions
are now.  So the open source solution only needs to match the
capabilities of that older version of Windows.

> 
> To say Microsofts actions are only "bad PR" is moral cowardice, and to
> encourage others to ignore copyright in this case shows moral courage,
> though not as much as courage as actually doing it.

That's how you land in jail.  If you disagree then you need to talk to
Microsoft and ask!  They may be willing to work with you.  If you can't
work out an agreement you have the choice of taking your matter to
court.  Or you can write to one of your political representatives.  I
don't believe simply ignoring the law in a civilized country is a good
option.
But you are of course entitled to your opinion.

Ferdinand
> 
> I hope I do not offend,
> Glenn Murray
> www.mines.edu/~glenn/public_html/Welcome.html
> 
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Evelyn Mitchell wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug

-- 
Ferdinand Schmid
http://www.archenergy.com
303-444-4149 x231