-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Homer on Sunday 06 Sep 2009 20:32 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee, that Goblin spake thusly:
>> DFS wrote:
>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:h7e1u4$7cq$4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>>>> Remember that Microsoft lie:
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft maintained that the operating systems themselves
>>>>> were, "two very different products intended for two very
>>>>> different functions."
>>>>
>>>> It is curious that your refuge from being just another magpie is
>>>> to act as a dull techno-dweeb! NT WS and Server were far
>>>> different in terms of licensing, just as a DVD of a motion
>>>> picture sold to the personal media market is far different than
>>>> the same thing licensed for commercial viewing.
>
> They are "different" only because the licensor claims they are, since
> "IP" laws allow licensors to invent fictitious limitations based only
> on the concept of permission to utilise knowledge. Such "differences"
> are not intrinsic, they are works of pure fiction used to exploit the
> consumers who are fooled into subscribing to the lie - that knowledge
> is property, and as such should be exclusively owned and controlled.
>
>>>> the silly GPL.
>
> Like the "silly" Public Domain, which was the de facto state of /all/
> knowledge for millennia?
>
>>> They never seem to see the big picture.
>
> The history of mankind's knowledge, and the resultant progress we all
> benefit from, is a /far/ bigger picture than this comparatively /new/
> phenomenon called "IP", which seeks to inhibit that progress - in the
> of greed.
>
>>> The cola dweebs conveniently - but very dishonestly - pretend to
>>> forget RedHat, Novell, Mandriva and Xandros "lies" about their
>>> various desktop and server versions of Linux, and the different
>>> licensing and pricing structures, and in some cases the artificial
>>> limitations of the lower-end versions.
>
> What is it exactly that you /think/ Red Hat licenses, DooFy?
>
> Red Hat's licenses are for /services/ (support), not Free Software?
>
> So what "artificial limitations of the lower-end versions" do Red Hat
> place on their /software/, DooFy?
>
> As for Novell, Mandriva and Xandros, their pact with the gangsters in
> Redmond might very well compel them to "license" all manner of things
> entirely antithetical to the goals of Free Software. You conveniently
> "forgot" /that/ in your straw-man argument. Ultimately the root cause
> of /software/ licensing issues WRT such traitors is still Microsoft.
>
>> No we don't its just the umbrella of Linux is so vast that we have
>> choice.
>
> Good thing too, otherwise we might all be compelled to use "Microsoft
> Linux", courtesy of the above traitors.
>
>> Can that be said for your Redmond platform?
>
> No, there is only One Microsoft WayÂ.
And then there are the PR "Geisha" types like Sam Ramji.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
"99http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.28 0.37 0.47 1/415 23558
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkqll+YACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7VhwCgmEnl49ucrLABEYKRS7W8XO/k
T4QAn0zbxYLhYv4yXwmpKtECMd27zOZW
=W7Yw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
