*countable infinities only

Steve Clark sclark at netwolves.com
Fri Jun 15 17:31:03 UTC 2012

On 06/15/2012 12:05 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Mathieu Bridon <bochecha at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:46 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>>> Please forgive this top posting.
>>> I will not answer now your radical defense of Microsoft, except to
>>> say two things:
>>> 1. Your defense would apply also to the decades long fraud of
>>> Microsoft saying in their EULA that, if you do not run the
>>> Microsoft OS installed at point of sale of the hardware, you get
>>> a refund for the OS.  But Microsoft and the hardware vendors
>>> systematically refused refunds.
>> No they haven't. People get their OS refunded in France. It is a long
>> and frustrating process, but with each victory it gets easier.
> No, even in France, as you state, it is not easy to get a refund.
> Even though the practice of tying software to hardware is
> illegal.  What this shows is that one must be careful to
> correctly estimate the size of various forces in tactical situation.
> The relevance to the present case is this:
> Some Fedora developers argue that it will still be possible to
> install Fedora on x86 hardware which, as shipped, has only the PK
> and the PK "authorized" Microsoft Hardware Key in the UEFI.  But
> Microsoft has for over a decade promised to simply give a refund
> when requested.  And today nowhere on Earth does Microsoft
> actually simply give a refund when requested.  Now Microsoft has
> promised to always allow the owner sitting before the machine to
> install their own key.  But we know that Microsoft has
> systematically broken its promise to give refunds.  Thus we
> should not accept Microsoft's promise here.
> In the case of ARM devices Microsoft's statement of its position
> is different: If the ARM device is shipped with a Microsoft OS,
> then Fedora will never be installed on the device.  No putting
> one's own key in, no getting a special
> Microsoft/Vendor/Certificate-Authority managed key for the whole
> Fedora project, no nothing, just gross suppression of Fedora and
> all free OSes.
>> There's even a step-by-step guide (in French) :
>> http://non.aux.racketiciels.info/guide/index
> Thank you for this pointer.
> Here is a story from 1999:
>     http://www.nylug.org/articles/text/article.windowsrefundday.nytimes.shtml
> The story is partly inaccurate. In New York City, of all the
> vendors whose machines we installed a free OS on, after careful
> removal of the Microsoft OS, only Emachines gave us a refund.
> Emachines was courteous in their written response to our request,
> and prompt in sending us the refund.
>> And recently:
>> """
>> For the first time in a case related to the sale of hardware/software, a
>> judge declares explicitly  that the sale of an OS by the OEM when the
>> customer never asked for it can be considered "unfair in any
>> circumstance given its aggressive characteristic". The argument, more
>> direct than ever (speaking about forced sale rather than bundled sale),
>> is usable in all Europe.
>> """
>> (quick translation from me, the inner quote is a translation of the
>> actual words from the judge)
>> http://aful.org/communiques/faire-payer-systeme-exploitation-non-demande-deloyal-en
> I am glad to see the court's clear statement.
>> Of course this is wildly off-topic...
>> -- 
>> Mathieu
> I hope that France enforces the law against tying of software to
> hardware.  France for decades has not.  Of course, neither has
> the United States of America, nor the UK, have enforced the laws
> and regulations here.  Nor has any large European country
> enforced its analogous laws and regulations, as far as I am
> aware.
> This is not offtopic.  This is the main topic.  Fedora proposes
> to support Microsoft in Microsoft's attempt to directly control
> every home computer on Earth.  The same arguments that are used
> in the present UEFI case to justify truckling to Microsoft could
> as well be applied to the Refund Clause question: "Why there is
> really no problem.  It is just a minor inconvenience that the
> hardware ships with an OS you do not want.  See the EULA says you
> get a refund, so you just have to carefully remove the Microsoft
> OS, careful don't start it up by accident, and then you get a
> refund.".  But in fact the policy of Microsoft is not to give any
> refunds, ever.  And in fact in the UEFI case, no matter what
> Microsoft says, the policy of Microsoft is to make it difficult
> to install Fedora on x86 hardware, and impossible on ARM
> hardware.
> oo--JS.

Stephen Clark
Director of Technology
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.clark at netwolves.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120615/44754fd7/attachment.html>

More information about the devel mailing list