hello, I know many schools get free m$ software and also training. they get support for very cheep (throw away ) cost. actually M$ is like a drugg vender who will give some doses of drugg free till a person becomes adicted. that's why I often raise this issue "should people not pay for free software given the quality and standards?" when people (at least a few) can pay for non-free crap ware which gives them no transperency, why should they not pay for some thing which gives them total freedom to do what ever with the copy they buy. for example if one buys a copy of debian gnu/linux and wishes to make copies and install on many computers he is free to do so and that's right. because "I paied for my copy so I have every right to do what ever I want with my copy". infact I feel it is just because many of us loudely banged our desks saying "reduced total ownership cost with foss", m$ has taken this new attitude of giving away free "LICENSED " cd of windows crapware. now when m$ starts to do this many others follow. for example I know a college in asam which has a course on gernalist based curriers. photoshop was given free to them by the respective company. now where does the issue of total ownership goes? so the point should not really be cost. the point should be what you get and what you can do with it. people must realise that gpl gives them every right including copying the cd and installation on various locations. and if there are computer experts in your enterprise, may be even modify the software. so firstly yes, anti piracy rules must be made strict so people will at least come to know how bad these rules are and what amount of restriction it puts on them. and secondly foss community should stop just talking about cost related issues. regards. Krishnakant.
-- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
