[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OpenSourceSchools Journal Online



Nadav Har'El wrote:

>On Mon, Oct 08, 2001, Ilya Konstantinov wrote about "Re: OpenSourceSchools Journal Online":
>
>>On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 02:28:24PM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>>
>>>>IANAL, but I think that legally, when you buy some software (e.g.,
>>>>Microsoft Bob) you buy the privilige of installing it on one
>>>>computer. As long as that computer is still running the software
>>>>somewhere - regardless if it was given away, stolen, or whatever -
>>>>
>
>By the way, to understand the BSA's mind-set, consider the following analogy:
>Consider a piece of hardware (say, a modem) costing $50. Now, manufacturing
>the card cost only (say) $5, and the rest of the cost is repaying for the
>develpment, and profit margins of everyone involved (chip maker, card maker,
>importer, store owner, etc.). Does that mean that if your computer gets
>stolen and you need a modem for the replacement computer, that you can
>get one for $5 because you already paid for the development and all the
>people's profits? No, in real life it doesn't. You'll need to pay the $50
>again.
>
>The same with software. If a software costs (say) $100 but cost $0 to
>"manufacture", when your software (or rather, an installation) gets stolen
>they expect you to pay the $100 again, not the $0 - even if in the case
>of software it is actually possible to get replacement software for that
>$0 (by reinstalling the same software).
>
>I'm not saying this any sense (it doesn't make ANY sense and is NOT FAIR) -
>just that this is how the BSA people (and Microsoft, etc.) think, as far as
>I know.
>
>>Isn't the whole deal about OEM licenses vs. shrink-wrapped boxes
>>is that the OEM license specially says "For distribution only with
>>a new PC" and disallows selling it in a store standalone (as it's
>>cheaper) ?
>>
>>They choose the second, for the immediate benefit of a lower price, and
>>since everybody knows a computer is naked without Windows.
>>
>
>This isn't really a "choice". They have no choice but to choose the cheaper
>option. Computer theaft isn't *that* common that the shrink-wrapped license
>will become cheaper.
>
>>This has some interesting info too:
>>http://www.microsoft.com/israel/education/piracy/default.asp
>>
>
>Yeah, insteresting... For example it says that Microsoft has special prices
>for a school to get Windows, Office, Visual Studio for all its computers.
>But there's an explicit requirement for the word *all*: they say "the agreement
>must include all the computer in the school". Ins't that just a perfect way
>to prevent schools from installing Linux on computers? (they can install
>Linux, but they won't save the price of Windows on it) It may even imply
>that the school can't have Macintoshes, Suns, or other types of computers
>(but I'm not sure on this point - the agreement itself is in "doc" format,
>so I didn't read it).
>
IIRC, they offered 50 MSDevs for the price of one, if you were a 
teaching institue and the programs were meant to be used to instruct 
people. The rational being that people will later prefer to stay with 
the same development environment they had at school (this rational is 
what made Unix such a success to begin with). At least that particular 
license should not include an "all" clause.

        Sh.




=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il