[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [seul-edu] Donated Computers Issue (cont'd)
- To: seul-edu@seul.org
- Subject: Re: [seul-edu] Donated Computers Issue (cont'd)
- From: Roger Dingledine <arma@mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 00:45:44 -0400
- Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
- Delivered-To: seul-edu-outgoing@seul.org
- Delivered-To: seul-edu@seul.org
- Delivery-Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 00:45:44 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <02043018245900.22356@aether>; from tompoe@renonevada.net on Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 06:24:59PM -0700
- References: <02043018245900.22356@aether>
- Reply-To: seul-edu@seul.org
- Sender: owner-seul-edu@seul.org
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 06:24:59PM -0700, tom poe wrote:
> It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with
> the computer for the life of the computer.
Before we go spreading our own (mis)information in the other direction,
can we investigate this a bit further? If we give them the benefit of
the doubt for a moment, surely there's *some* grain of truth in this.
If anybody has the fine-print-Windows-license, does it say anything
about this? Did they do any deals with major distributors like Dell to
create such a restriction? I mean, in theory they could put it in their
you-use-it-you-bought-it license, right? Is the only reason we 'know'
their statement is wrong that it's predatory and monopolistic?
I mean, their statement is false -- I buy my computers from a fine
place called www.kc-computers.com (for example, that's where I got the
machine running seul.org), and when I say "no operating system please"
he's just fine with that. But there's a big difference between "I'm an
exception so your statement isn't totally correct" and "Your statement
doesn't apply to anybody."
Hm.
--Roger