[mdlug] Linspire caves in to Microsoft patent threat

[Wolfger]

On 5/16/07, Michael Corral <micorral at comcast.net> wrote:
> Wolfger a ecrit:
> > On 5/16/07, Michael Corral wrote:
> >> http://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter.php
> >
> > I particularly like the way you are portraying their dedication to
> > supporting their users as best they can as "surrender", particularly
>
> How is making Linspire users pay the Microsoft extortion fee an
> example of "dedication to supporting their users"? That seems like
> the opposite to me.

I missed the part where they are doing this. Please show me.

> > I agree. Freedom includes the freedom to use closed source software if
> > I so choose. I've had this argument with FSF fanatics in the past, and
> > I'm sure I'll have it again, but the bottom line is: my box, my
> > choices.
>
> It seemed to me that the Linspire CEO in the quote above was referring
> to the GPL,

Well, at least you admit you're basing your entire argument on an assumption.

> since GPLv3 will prohibit Novell and Linspire from doing
> what they intend to do.

If GPLv3 prohibits me from using any closed source or patented
software on my system, I want nothing to do with it either. Is GPLv3
really that over-reaching?

> If you agree with him, and you don't like the
> GPL, then you may be happier with one of the BSDs, or Windows.

I'm perfectly happy with the GPL as I know it, and Linux, and my
closed-source Nvidia drivers. I eagerly await the day that (more)
closed source proprietary video games are written with Linux
compatibility in mind. There is no contradiction here. If the Linux
kernel, the GNU operating system and KDE all moved to closed source
proprietary code tomorrow, I'd still use them all, and be darned near
as happy about it.

> >> Good lord, why are these clowns even in the Linux business??
> >
> > To make money and to support the spread and development of Linux.
>
> Well, I think you're right on one of those. :)

Then you don't think they're here to make money? Because they sure
can't make money on Linux without supporting its spread and
development!

> > What about you?
>
> Me, I'm not in it to make money. I've played a role in the growing
> acceptance of Linux where I work, with no monetary reward expected
> or received. And I'm absolutely fine with that. I've also written
> several applications that I've made available to Linux users for free,
> all released under the GPL. I was not paid to do that, it was something
> I did because I thought some people may find those applications (which
> I initially wrote for my own use) useful. The fact that there are other
> people now using those apps is reward enough for me.

Bravo! You're a good man with a paying job. But for Linspire, Linux
*is* their source of income. To fault them for trying to stay in
business is ridiculous.

> I'd ask the same question to you, except for the small matter of me
> not being interested in the answer. ;)

Cool.

> I do want to ask you this, though: if your distro also caved in
> and starting charging the extortion fee (assuming you're not
> already using Suse or Linspire), would you pay it?

First off, we're back to "where did you see that Linspire is going to
force users to pay an extortion fee?", because I read that letter
twice (once when Linspire sent it to me, and once more when I started
arguing with you), and I didn't see that.
Secondly, I am determined to not pay Microsoft any more money, ever.
That's my personal choice. If my current distros of choice (all 3 of
them) started charging the tax, I'd either find another distro, or use
a pirated OS. It's that simple. I'd gladly give money to Gentoo or to
Mepis. I do give money to Cedega (curse my gaming addiction!). But
nothing more to M$.

-- 
Wolfger
http://wolfger.wordpress.com/
http://1fjordaroad.wordpress.com/
AOL IM: wolf4coyot
Yahoo!Messenger: wolfgersilberbaer
Skype: wolfger88