<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.30.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Hello Alessandro,<BR>
<BR>
First of all, thanks a lot for your complete and detailed answer.<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
btw: why only the EU?
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
It is a start point. I'm in Europe and this is a FSF Europe list. If it works for EU, maybe it could be adopted in other regions.<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
Likewise, while I understand not everyone can replace the engine, I'd
love to buy a car without wheels and without a battery, so I can
install the ones that best match my needs and use pattern.
Back to the software/hardware split, I would love to buy a cell phone
without software and put the one of my choice, and the same applies
to the music player, the TV set, the dishwasher, the microwave oven
and the espresso machine.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe those are similar cases. Despite it, I prefer to start for laptops and OS.<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
While I sympathise, reality is exactly the other way round. The
profit, the companies and the holy "marketplace" are the most
important things out there.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe companies and marketplace seem to be considered sometimes most important than citizens' freedom and rights. We should work to fix that, at least regarding software. <BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
So, the right path to attack the problem you describe is requesting a
split of the contract.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
[...]
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
Thus, if we use the proprietary vendor's efforts in promoting wider
knowledge of their "intellectual property", and we help them in
reminding their users to not "pirate" that crap to friends, then we
may have some (little) chance of suceeding. We can request rules to
split out the *sell* from the *license* in monetary exchanges for
computing devices, in order to raise awareness about what is allowed
and what is not, to help software vendors defending their own rights
and better protect "intellectual property" overall.
As a side effect, we'll automatically achieve more awareness about how
licensing *that* crap is not really mandatory, and there are cheaper
and sweeter pieces of crap out there, that run on the same hardware.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Maybe I don't understand completely the idea.<BR>
Please, correct me if I'm wrong:<BR>
- Buying a computer we buy an object and, then, we own it.<BR>
- Buying software we buy a license, a right to use the software under certain conditions.<BR>
- If the software manufacturer and/or vendor wants to correctly protect his product, the license, from a bad use, being able to demonstrate the buyer has really acquired the rights specified on the license and then there is an agreement, the software purchase should be differentiated (split) from the computer purchase (point #1).<BR>
- If that happens, it could be easier for some buyers, in a next step, to decide not to buy the OS license recommended by the computer seller, but only the computer (point #2).<BR>
<BR>
Is it right?<BR>
If yes, it seems roughly the same idea I had and the same conclusion from a different perspective, with the emphasis in the protection of the software licenses and not in the rights of the buyers.<BR>
Perhaps both views could reinforce each other.<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
Unfortunately, and I'll conclude, this technological market is
disappearing, and we are late as usual. [...], but maybe it would be wasted time because by the time we
achieve the result that market place would be inexistent already.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
If we fight for freedom, we should be prepared for long in coming. If we do not fight for it, it will never arrive. <BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>