48 best free apps from Microsoft
in [Freeware]
|
From: Craig on 2 Feb 2010 16:27 On 02/02/2010 10:47 AM, M.L. wrote: >> >IE, then, is "free to download" and nothing more. IE still costs $ due >> >to the licensing. > EULAs are not legal documents in the USA. More like a preference of > the distributor. I don't pretend to be a lawyer but, EULA-as-contract has /not/ been addressed by the Supreme Court. By definition, this means there is no US-wide legal interpretation of EULAs. We 'merkuns, after all, live in a federal system. Not only that, but there *are* jurisdictions where the EULA already has been declared a legally binding contract (e.g. Caspi v. Microsoft Network, LLC, 732 A. 2d 528 - NJ: Superior Court, Appellate Div. 1999). But again, I'm not a lawyer. -- -Craig
From: Craig on 2 Feb 2010 16:56 On 02/02/2010 10:37 AM, KristleBawl wrote: > The point is that Microsoft freeware is written for Windows users No. Again, IE and other such products aren't freeware. The illustration I posted shows software, published by Microsoft, which may be run on Windows and, via WINE, on Linux and FreeBSD and other OSes. There is no technical barrier. However, you can only install IE "If you are licensed to use Microsoft Windows..." IOW, these are legal restrictions which require(d) payment: i.e. MS Windows license fees. I cannot legally use this software without doing so. This may seem to be inconsequential to you when discussing what is "free" but, in my case, I bought MS Windows so that I could legally use Internet Explorer. Hence, IE is not freeware. fwiw, -- -Craig
From: Anonymous Remailer (austria) on 2 Feb 2010 17:02 KristleBawl wrote: >> IE, then, is "free to download" and nothing more. IE still costs $ due >> to the licensing. > > The point is that Microsoft freeware is written for Windows users, Not precisely. Micro$oft freeware is written for Window$ *owners*, or their agents. A key difference. > which > has always been true, but it is still freeware. Many third-party > freeware programs are written to run on Windows, too. But there's a huge gaping chasm between targeting and supporting a certain OS/platform rather than writing the uber-portable killer app, and *demanding in writing* that you purchase the very same copy of whatever operating system you're developing for, from *you*. It would be like a Linux developer writing "free" Linux software, then demanding that it only be run on a purchased copy of their own Linux distro. Yeah, it sounds batshit insane when the foot is on the other hand, but read a typical Micro$oft EULA... that's exactly what they're doing. Now read an EULA from almost anyone not Micro$oft. No other "freeware" vendor, be they Mac/Win/Lin/Whatever, demands that you buy a copy of Windows from them. They really don't give a flying fornicate whether you bought your copy of Window$ at all in fact, and most normal EULA's actually have indemnifying clauses which relieve them if you're running a bootleg copy. Hell for that matter most freeware authors don't legally care if you're running straight emulation either, they just won't officially support it (but many will address issues as a matter of PR). > Quite a few > freeware programs are offered in several versions for the three most > common platforms; Windows, Mac and Linux. Exactly. And not a single one of them are a Micro$oft product. Thank you for pointing that out. :)
From: Daniel Mandic on 2 Feb 2010 17:04 Bear Bottoms wrote: > A person can choose > to buy an operating system or not as there are free operating systems > also. Eh! > Yes, fortunately, your standards are not standard. Yeah, fortunately... (they do not even have eggs, milk or bread??!) -- Daniel Mandic
From: KristleBawl on 2 Feb 2010 17:29
Craig expressed an opinion: > On 02/02/2010 10:37 AM, KristleBawl wrote: > >> The point is that Microsoft freeware is written for Windows users > > No. Again, IE and other such products aren't freeware. > > The illustration I posted shows software, published by Microsoft, > which may be run on Windows and, via WINE, on Linux and FreeBSD and > other OSes. There is no technical barrier. However, you can only > install IE "If you are licensed to use Microsoft Windows..." > > IOW, these are legal restrictions which require(d) payment: i.e. MS > Windows license fees. I cannot legally use this software without > doing so. > > This may seem to be inconsequential to you when discussing what is > "free" but, in my case, I bought MS Windows so that I could legally > use Internet Explorer. Hence, IE is not freeware. > > fwiw, I'm not talking about the programs bundled into Windows, such as IE. I'm not talking about Office apps, either. There are a few programs that you can get for Windows that are free, *after* you already paid for Windows. -- "End of discussion." - "Discussion? What discussion?" KristleBawl's Taglines by Tagzilla 0.066.2 http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla Instabird development http://www.instantbird.com/ |