Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

FSF Does Want Secure Boot; They Just Want It Under User Control | 443 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

FSF Does Want Secure Boot; They Just Want It Under User Control

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 09:24 AM EST

What do you mean "If" they're not the same person. With MS software,
it is definitely still owned by MS; now as to the machine - is that owned by MS
or me?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Where do you figure I'm happy with a click-through EULA?

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 10:19 AM EST

I run Linux at home. I have since 1998. I stopped using Microsoft primarily because I was unhappy with the click-through EULA.

As a result, Microsoft's version of anything is meaningless to me:

Microsoft code does not touch my current pc (10 years old), never has, and never will! For example: because of the path Novell took with SUSE and the path Ubuntu decided to go down: neither of those will ever be on my PC because I can't trust they do not contain Microsoft code.

So I'm not in the least bit concerned with what Microsoft thinks.

As I said: it has to be under the Owner's (not user's) control! As you can see:

I heavily disagree with Microsoft and only slightly disagree with the FSF. So how do you figure I'm happy with the click-through EULA based on what I authored previously? I really am curious how you drew that conclusion.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sorry, it was a question - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 01:20 PM EST
- Hopefully I can clarify (if not already done) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 04:11 PM EST

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )