"I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them," he said, adding with a shrug: "That may seem radical."

I wouldn't expect otherwise... his whole life has been about exploiting the basic needs of the computer users, why would he take a different approach regarding health issues?

I think his charity will never compensate for the attack on the fundamental rights that he's been sponsoring.

Cheers,

Pedro

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:11 PM, José Pedro Ferreira pedro.ferreira@fe.up.pt wrote:

...

"I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them," he said, adding with a shrug: "That may seem radical."

I wouldn't expect otherwise... his whole life has been about exploiting the basic needs of the computer users, why would he take a different approach regarding health issues?

I think his charity will never compensate for the attack on the fundamental rights that he's been sponsoring.

Cheers,

Pedro

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:32 AM, David B davidb_info@yahoo.es wrote:

...

So much for the allegued "openness" and "open source friendliness" of Microsoft: There is no such thing: They want to open the breach inside the FOSS community separating tame just-business-friendly patent-friendly open-source from free(dom) software and marginalise (and eventually kill) the GPL and the FSF. He goes as far as downplaying the benefits of open source software in medical science projects (better leave it to Gates' charity) Notice they keep insisting on software patentability and that no matter if it is open source they want to make you pay for software (and Novell is helping them in pursuing this strategy).

Source: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/bill-gates-what.html

Best regards. David B.(Spain)

One thing Gates won't be leaving behind in

retirement is his distaste for open source software. After one scientist asked if Gates would consider open source uses in health research, the man who built his $280 billion company on the power of intellectual property bristled.

"There's free software and then there's open

source," he suggested, noting that Microsoft gives away its software in developing countries. With open source software, on the other hand, "there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with."

Open source, he said, creates a license "so that

nobody can ever improve the software," he claimed, bemoaning the squandered opportunity for jobs and business. (Yes, Linux fans, we're aware of how distorted this definition is.) He went back to the analogy of pharmaceuticals: "I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them," he said, adding with a shrug: "That may seem radical."

it's very revealing that Microsoft tries to separate Free software (it tries to characterise it as gratis, i.e. zero cost, cheap, shoddy) from open source. Open source is, to Microsoft, mainly about visibility, but it wants it to be subjected to the same rules, including software patents. Where are those geniuses who defended Microsoft's seemingly-friendly approach towards the OSI?

http://www.endsoftwarepatents.org

¿Eres un usuario cautivo ó libre? ¿controlas tu ordenador o tu ordenador te controla a tí?

Libérate: Usa Gnu/Linux y OpenOffice.org:

http://www.obtengalinux.org/windows/

Are you a free user or a captive one? Do you control your computer or does your computer control you?

Set yourself free: Use Gnu/Linux and OpenOffice.org:

http://www.getgnulinux.org/windows/

  ______________________________________________

Yahoo! Solidario. Intercambia los objetos que ya no necesitas y ayuda a mantener un entorno más ecológico. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion