Timeline for How to deal with an answer which suggest "Windows XP Ultimate"-Build from a Third-Party?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2010 at 6:50 | comment | added | Bobby | Please do not forget that there are enough people out there who make their living with FOSS. Just because it's free/libre, doesn't mean that you can't live from it. | |
| Oct 27, 2010 at 0:42 | comment | added | James Mertz | @Giles I agree that open source software is great and does follow the freedom of community of change,which has great benefits, but there are those out there that make a living off of software and that's where the difference is. We all (including me) think of Microsoft as this "Major corp" headed by Bill Gates and that's it. What I think gets looked over is the hundreds even thousands of people that put in hard work to make Microsoft what it is. It's these people that I'm defending in my answer above. | |
| Oct 27, 2010 at 0:33 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | “Think of it as your own software (…) would you want someone to be altering that software at will? (…) would you want someone to be distributing the software for free?” For the many people who write free software, the answer is a clear yes! As far as morality is concerned, there are people who consider the license verifications performed by Microsoft immoral. So most of your answer is just bogus. The grain of truth is that the software in question is (I think, IANAL) illegal, at least in the USA and other locales that have a DMCA-type law. | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 14:58 | history | answered | James Mertz | CC BY-SA 2.5 |