Window XP Anti-Piracy update - Pirates throw a hissy fit

@Xilmwa Said

If you think Windows is the most advanced OS on the market, you need to seriously have your head examined, because only one thing keeps Windows on top: FEAR.

@Xilmwa Said
you idiots don't realize...

@Xilmwa Said

THEIR CODE? Ya, sure, it may be their code,

@jonnythan Said

Most advanced? In some ways.

Best desktop OS? For me, absolutely.

I feel extremely confident in saying that I have an ass-ton more experience and expertise with many more operating systems than you do. Feel free to question my knowledge or experience.

But beware if you're going to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, and that you know better. Those are big words, and you should think about whether you can back them up before saying them.



I'd also caution you to beware before calling other people idiots.

@jonnythan Said

You could have stopped right there. Yes, it's their code. They own the copyright. It's theirs, and no one else's. And no one else can use it except by the terms of the license agreement to which they agreed when they accepted the delivery of the code.

@Xilmwa Said

You are right, but I still don't agree with it.

Hmm....gues why that's why my bootup says Mandriva.

The only thing Windows has in my life is a boot option.


I guess I got too use to GPL and actually started to enjoy freedom.

DAMN THE FREEDOM!!!!!!

@jonnythan Said

Even the GPL puts specific limits on your freedom.

The GPL is exactly the same as the Microsoft EULA - it allows you to use the copyrighted code, but only under certain conditions.

The GPL places conditions on you the exact same way the MS EULA does. The GPL requires you to provide source code and forbids you from placing certain restrictions on the code that you write and own.

Many would argue that the BSD license is much more about freedom than the GPL license. The BSD license places no such restrictions on the user.

But they're all licenses that conform to the copyright laws of the US. The GPL absolutely relies on US copyright law to exist.

@Xilmwa Said

No s***. However, I typically like to think that if I make an effort to have something available to the user as Open-Source, the code will stay that way.

@Delta62 Said

interesting

@jonnythan Said

The only way you can accomplish that is by placing restrictions on the user through the use of a license agreement.

The Microsoft license agreement allows you to use the code under certain conditions.

The GPL allows you to use the code under certain conditions.

The "conditions" in each case are of course different, but both the GPL and Microsoft EULA are typical license agreements. If you allow one, you must allow the other. If you disagree with the whole system, you have the BSD license, which does not require that the source stay open down the line.

@cGobla Said

They are completely in their own worlds.

@Xilmwa Said

Actually, you are wrong on one thing.

Microsoft's EULA puts restrictions on binaries, not code. They have complete TOP SECRET file on code or something.

GPL allows freedom for users. GPL doesn't care about users. GPL is aimed at developers. Mostly greedy developers.

@Delta62 Said

yea want to grab a coffee?