Forbidding Vistas: Windows licensing disserves the user
,----[ Quote ]
| It is unlikely that a home user looking for a
| computer operating system has any of these "features"
| of the Vista EULA in mind:
|
| # Self-limiting software
| # Vanishing functionality through invalidation
| # Removal of media capabilities
| # Problem-solving prohibited
| # Limited mobility
| # One transfer only
|
| and a bonus,
|
| # Restrictions on your rights to use MPEG-4 video
|
| [...]
|
| Users never asked for these impossible limitations.
| Microsoft decided unilaterally to add them, claiming
| it could abrogate personal ownership, fair use, and
| first sale rights because "The software is licensed,
| not sold." If Microsoft faced real market competition
| on the home desktop, users could vote with their
| wallets, but anticompetitive practices and network
| effects make Microsoft a like-it-or-not
| proposition for most users.
|
| While Carroll's Humpty Dumpty might have been able
| to choose the meanings of his words at will, on this
| side of the looking glass, software vendors shouldn't
| be able to redefine the meaning of "buying software"
| by the simple attachment of a click-wrap license.
`----
http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/10/19/forbidding_vistas_windows_licensing_disserves_the_user.html
The last few points in particular highlight the value
of Free software. Imagine depending on a program whose
progression and skill sets are tied to pricey licences
and a company that will vanish. There's no ownership,
just a piece of paper with a hologram.
|
|
