Harold A'Hole a écrit :
Nobody ever says why MSFT would prosecute someone who didn't have the
license. In court, it would be pointed out: [...]
So in court they'd have to show why a particular user who hadn't sent in a
fax should be prosecuted? They would have to show harm done to them. [...]
The problem is that a standard cannot be decided based on "woulds",
"shoulds" or suppositions... It must be based on facts. What is in written
in the license is facts, and makes it unacceptable for a large part of the
Internet community. The past behaviour of a given company is facts. The
rest are just suppositions.
MSFT would be a pariah for such an attack.
Aren't they already ? I may have been misinformed ;-)
They already have monopoly issues, and spending good money to prosecute
over a free license is simply absurd. The fear is just fear mongering,
like worrying that the U.S. will turn its military against its own
citizens. It could happen, but it won't because it's politically
untenable and legally weak.
Well, the fact that the U.S. would use its military to bomb and invade a
foreign country that hadn't attacked them and didn't represent any threat
to them, giving big lies to the world about the reasons by the voice of
the U.S. govt would have seemed "politically untenable and legally weak",
as you say.
Know what ? It happened. And they're still there.
But I believe this is quickly drifting out of the topic of this list, so I
apologize in advance for this drift -- just answering your statement.
--
Michel Bouissou <michel(_at_)bouissou(_dot_)net> OpenPGP ID 0xDDE8AC6E
Aurais-je manque une loi permettant a n'iumporte que CON (excusez moi,
mais je vois pas d'autre terme) à salir et à insulter les marques des
sociétés connues ?
-+- JD-P in NPC : Dura lex basta crapoto, et que ça saute ! -+-