On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 10:28 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 22:29 -0400, Manolo Martínez wrote: > > On 06/26/12 at 12:55am, Karol Babioch wrote: > > > I have only the following criticism: Given the relatively low cost of > > > getting a signed certificate from Microsoft (to my knowledge it will > > > cost about 100 USD), it might fail to achieve what it is proposed to. > > > Obviously Microsoft will try to prevent any sort of abuse, but even if > > > Microsoft only hands out signed certificates after some extensive checks > > > to trustworthy companies/organisations, it can't control it from there > > > on any more. > > > > Just for clarification: you seem to be endorsing a model in which > > organizations (linux distros?) pay Microsoft for the right to install > > non-Microsoft software in PCs. Is that correct? > > First of all: Apologize for my OT noise. > Second: Yes, FLOSS users are willing to pay 99 USD to an organization > to use free as in beer software. > > I can't resist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IXmHqPWxUw ;D In Germany we already have organizations that take money for not being interested in their films and music, GEZ and GEMA. It takes a lawyer to completely get rid of the GEZ, since they are stalking, once you get out of this mafia and there's no way to get rid of the GEMA. As soon as you buy any empty data media to store your data, your audio and video productions, you need to pay to archive your own work. So Prince and Madonna get money from Germans who never ever would listen to their crap. Free downloads are not what artists make suffering, Prince, Madonna and Metallica are the vampires who get money for the work of CC (Creative Commons) artists. So let's pay M$ for not using M$. A business model that should be supported and perhaps you like to be fucked by http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%E2%80%99s_law too.
