On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 17:49 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Henrik, I will respond to your claims, if you will answer me one question first: As you know, for over a decade Microsoft included in every EULA for its home computer OSes, a "Refund Clause". The clause stated that if the buyer of the computer never booted the already installed Microsoft OS, that the buyer would get a refund for the unused Microsoft OS. For all that time Microsoft refused to give a refund when the claim was made. Indeed a few people got refunds, but in most cases, people who complied with the terms of the Refund Clause did not get a refund, due to Microsoft's direct refusal. Do you condone, or consider as negligible, this long continued abuse by Microsoft?
Please stop bringing this up. It has nothing to do with the current situation. I cannot see any relevance at all in any reply Henrik might give to your question. It sounds more like you're just taking it upon yourself to decide whether you consider people to be more sympathetic to Microsoft than you would like. If you have a reply to Henrik's points that you think it would benefit everyone to see, then post it. If you don't, don't. It seems presumptuous to demand his position on a different issue before you continue the conversation. -- Adam Williamson
Thanks, Adam, I will attempt to avoid engaging Gerald Henriksen further on this list regarding this topic. ad your claim that the EULA fraud is unrelated to Microsoft's abuse of the UEFI: Of course, the EULA fraud and the UEFI fraud of "SecureBoot" (when it is Microsoft's kernel that is booted) are part of the same campaign to end free software. I will also not engage you further in this topic, beyond, I hope, posting a general summary of my positions on this nexus of difficulties. Thanks, Adam, for posting and expressing your position so clearly. oo--JS. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
