[PLUG] http://badvista.fsf.org

A G subscrive at yahoo.co.uk
Sat Apr 21 17:39:08 IST 2007

--- BVK <bvk.groups at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/21/07, A G <subscrive at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > 2. You dont own vista is what the fsf says.
> > Well, I also dont own ubuntu tht I am using
> neither do
> > I own FF with which I am replying.
> Sure, you don't own Ubuntu as a company and you
> don't own FF as a trademark.
> Why do you think you don't own Ubuntu and FF as a
> softwares?  You can
> do anything with GPL software, except violating its
> license.  Is it
> the license behind not feeling like you own it?
> When do you say you *own* a software anyway?

Yes. Now at least we are on the same page that
softwares are licensed and we are not using some
car/hood etc examples.
vista license is very restrictive. linux license is

So my only point was that fsf should argue that gpl
v2/3 etc and hence the s/w written under these
licenses are better than vistas license.

But when they write an article with headings like
"Even when you legally buy Vista, you don't own it."
this is sensationalising things the "aaj tak" way.
It will attract attention for sometime, but will not
help in the long run.

The other point is "DRM gives power to Microsoft and
Big Media." Further... "They decide which programs you
can and can't use on your computer..."
This is similar to the sco case. When you accuse
someone (person/entity), you need to have some proof.
I dont know of any proof where MS has denied other s/w
from running.
If you know, pl enlighten.

I (and I hope many readers) would have prefered
"DRM gives power to Microsoft and Big Media.
    * They decide which programs you can and can't use
on your computer
    Eg: vista does not allow FF 2.0.1 to run on it. OR
google desktop to run.

    * They decide which features of your computer or
software you can use at any given moment
    Eg: Many cases were found where vista allowed a PC
to work as printer server as well as www server, but
then www server stopped working due to trigger in the

    * They force you to install new programs even when
you don't want to (and, of course, pay for the
    Eg: some real world example.

    * They restrict your access to certain programs
and even to your own data files
    Eg: and some more real examples.

As I have said, these egs will have more impact on
me/readers than just some claims.

> Sure, you don't own Ubuntu as a company and you
> don't own FF as a trademark.
Also some clarifications.
Ubuntu is a product/trademark. Canonical is the
FF is product and trademark of Mozilla inc.
vista is a product/trademark of MS.

So I am very clear of the various
terms/products/trademarks etc.
Since fsf says, "...legally buy Vista, you don't..."
I gave equivalent example.


Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for
your free account today http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html 

More information about the Plug-mail mailing list