Linux Networks & the Competition Act (Was: Fwd: [d at DCC] Competition Act)

Darryl Moore darryl-90a536wCiRb3fQ9qLvQP4Q at public.gmane.org
Tue Jun 16 21:22:10 UTC 2009


Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> Darryl Moore wrote:
>> That is an interesting article you point to. Unfortunately I fear it is
>> the article that has the facts wrong. Not this thread.
>>
>> Refer to the MS EULA directly here:
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx
>>
>> It is quite clear. The relevant section is the one titled WINDOWS VISTA
>> HOME BASIC and/or WINDOWS VISTA HOME PREMIUM
>>
>> 4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software
>> installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise
>> emulated) hardware system.
>>
>> I am afraid this is a slightly higher authority on MS license
>> restrictions then a arstechnica.com article.
>>   
> And yet... if you look at the license for Vista Business (at the same
> website you point to), it is also quite clear:
> 
>     3. d.  "*Use with Virtualization Technologies*. You may use the
>     software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or
>     otherwise emulated) hardware system"
> 
> 
> So ... It's not that Microsoft prohibits virtualization in all versions
> of Vista or as corporate policy. It is only prohibited in the Home
> versions that trade lower cost for reduced functionality. This is a 100%
> legitimate, non-monopolistic approach (though certainly not the open
> source approach).
> 
> You're being disingenuous in your approach by looking at the specific
> examples of licenses (that are KNOWN to be for reduced-functionality
> versions) and using them as the basis for a blanket condemnation of the
> company. If you're not being completely up-front here (and/or provably
> not doing your homework), how do you expect a skeptical reader to trust
> the rest of your assumptions and assertions?
> 


I'm not being disingenuous, and I'm not disagreeing with you regarding
the license. I do disagree with you that "This is a 100% legitimate,
non-monopolistic approach". Recall in my original post I said many small
businesses use the OS that came on their system. Usually that is Win
Home or Win Pro. To get the Business version is almost always an upgrade
option. This means that if you only want the functionality of Home or
Pro, but you want to use it on a Linux based machine, you are still
going to have to put out extra bucks to Microsoft for the privileged of
doing so. This I see as a barrier and an anti-competitive act as
described in section 78(1)(a).

Now I am not a lawyer, as has already been well established, and I'm
also not looking to this group to decide the validity of my position
(though the criticism is welcome as it does help me better clarify it).

I am looking for people who believe that there is merit to my position,
(and my frequent quoting of the act is my attempt to lend some
credibility to it) and are willing to put there name to a piece of paper
that will force the Bureau to consider those merits themselves.

I do welcome your criticism, but I see your accusation of
disingenuousness as a slight as it suggest that my posts are less than
earnest.

cheers,
darryl
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists





More information about the Legacy mailing list