On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, John McCreesh wrote:
[snip]
One good answer to why.openoffice.org is "because the alternative is
Microsoft"... In the past, I've discouraged active MS-bashing in our
marketing - companies and politicians who do nothing but knock the
opposition don't do themselves any favours in the long run.
There are actually quite a laundry list of legitimate complaints. Sad
that in the atmosphere of corporatism permeates the rest of society and
critique, analysis, and positive/negative observations are not allowed.
That said, we can get quite far, if not farther, by not specifically
naming a particular problem company and instead focus on the issues. Yes,
I realize it is a lot to ask of the public to connect two dots, but we are
already seeing positive feedback on topics like open source and open
formats (or 'open' in general).
However, I think MS have made a huge gaffe in delaying the launch of
MS-Office 2007 so they can make it look less like OOo, and we should not
be slow to point this out. I've done two press interviews recently where
the journalists have been very receptive to this message.
Cool!
As far as capitalizing on the BSA sweep that MS is running, how can we get
the message across that using F/OSS (in our case OOo) gives peace of mind
from worries about contracts and licensing requirements?
Most people and businesses running MSO 97 are not going to have their
papers in order when the BSA knocks on their door.
-Lars
Lars Nood�n ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Patents are wrong for software but right for inventions. Write:
http://consultation.ffii.org/Commission_extends_the_consultation_by_12_days
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
