[PL] PL2005 Ware Issues

[Susan Bugher]

omega <[email protected]>:

Apologies to have misrepresented your words Susan. Let me try to straighten
it out now.... To support removal of OE from Pricelessware, one agrees with
at least one, and not even necessarily both, of the positions.

Yes - the question is whether or not OE is an acceptable candidate -
agreement with *either* argument for removal makes it unacceptable.

Premise: Pricelessware represents a list of downloadable freeware.

Issues: 1. There exists no download file for OE.
or/and
2. OE is not a true freeware.

1. IE and OE can be downloaded and installed as a browser suite. You
"can't" download and install OE separately. OE is not an "add-on" app.
It's an optional part of a browser suite.

2. A EULA that starts out by saying "These Microsoft Corporation
("Microsoft") operating system components" seems to me to answer the
Freeware question - it's not.

Thanks for your hard work on this Karen. IMO there's no room left for
doubt on either issue.

Susan

 

[John Fitzsimons]

omega wrote:

If someone wants to recommend a last freeware version now is the time to
do it. We're not voting for memories of what used to be. The version
*must* be available for download.

Free Agent : Nominated.

Available from many places. One of them being ;

http://www.nazarene.nl/info/download/english.php

Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/

 

[Sietse Fliege]

It does get installed along with the rest of the Windows components,
but with Windows XP you do have the option of uninstalling OE (not IE)
via the control panel. I have no idea how thorough the OE uninstall
is.

Are you sure? I do not see the option.

 

[PuppyKatt]

Hi Sietse. The option is in Control Panel>Add/Remove Windows Components.
Using this route, you can uninstall BOTJ IE and OE, sort of. They will not
be functional until you re-install them via the same method, and all related
icons will go away.

 

[Sietse Fliege]

Hi Sietse. The option is in Control Panel>Add/Remove Windows
Components. Using this route, you can uninstall BOTJ IE and OE, sort
of. They will not be functional until you re-install them via the
same method, and all related icons will go away.

I now also came across MS kb article 263837
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;263837

How to Manually Remove and Reinstall Outlook Express in Windows 2000

I guess this may also apply to XP.
Season to taste.

 

[Chrissy Cruiser]

me too! ther very anoyying

Stop that for remember I am ALPHA to your omega.

 

[Chrissy Cruiser]

Free Agent is no freeware. It is a demo advertisement product.

Agree about v.2, but see comment about previous version 1.93 in
<[email protected]> in
the "[PL] PL2005 INTERNET" thread.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

me too.

Ooops, wrong thread.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Copied from another thread. Please do *NOT* post comments in VOTING
threads. TIA Susan

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

[argument moved from ballot thread to Ware Issues thread]

Are we going to vote on these programs too?

ISTM you guys are legally confused, but I have no time to elaborate
now other than - well put simply: OE/IE is an issue between MS and
USER. Third party freeware programs is an issue between THIRD PARTY
AUTHOR and USER. If third party software depends on X (like MS WIN or
IE) does not matter, since the third party software terms of use is
still an issue between THIRD PARY AUTHOR and USER. Third party authors
often say: "You need X to use my app". But hardly ever seen anyone
say: "You need a valid licence for X to use my app", but if they do -
well then of course shall I consider their app not freeware (and
of course if they otherwise cripple or in other ways make their app
not freeware any more).

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Mark S.]

Outlook Express has already been nominated and seconded.
It clearly fits into the Pricelessware freeware category as stated at
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/WareGlossary.php

"Freeware: Legally obtainable software that you may use at no cost,
monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish."

In what manner does Outlook Express not fit the group's definition of
Freeware?


It is very obvious that someone is trying to change the definition of
'freeware' after the balloting has already started.

Mark S.

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

It is very obvious that someone is trying to change the definition of
'freeware' after the balloting has already started.

Either you have not been around here long,
or you obviously did not bother to read
<http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2005/2005PL-Procedures.php>.
Please do your homework before accusing others of foul play.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Roger Johansson]

well put simply: OE/IE is an issue between MS and
USER. Third party freeware programs is an issue between THIRD PARTY
AUTHOR and USER. If third party software depends on X (like MS WIN or
IE) does not matter, since the third party software terms of use is
still an issue between THIRD PARY AUTHOR and USER.

So the difference is that the author in this case is microsoft.

I understand the feelings of those who hate Microsoft, Bill Gates or
Britney Spears. I know why people have so much anger in their hearts and
why they need to find suitable objects for their feelings.

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

So the difference is that the author in this case is microsoft.

Not at all. Simple logic: substitute the example of OE/IE and MS in
the above with anything: The legal use of Norton Systemworks is an
issue between the user and Symantec. If a third party freeware named
ALFA claims it requires Norton Systemworks to run, that does not make
ALFA not-freeware. If on the other hand the licence of ALFA claims it
requires a LICENCE for Norton System Work for you to use it, well that
WOULD comprise the "freeware" status of ALFA.

I understand the feelings of those who hate Microsoft, Bill Gates or
Britney Spears. I know why people have so much anger in their hearts and
why they need to find suitable objects for their feelings.

If you explain so clearly that nobody can misunderstand,
somebody will.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

So the difference is that the author in this case is microsoft.

No, the difference is that that Microsoft /sells/ you a licence for OE
along with the rest of the OS rather than giving it to you.
Dependencies are not at issue, as Bjorn pointed out.

I understand the feelings of those who hate Microsoft, Bill Gates
or Britney Spears. I know why people have so much anger in their
hearts and why they need to find suitable objects for their
feelings.

Yeah, but do you understand why some people have the need to paint
those with whom they disagree as being full of hatred?

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Outlook Express has already been nominated and seconded.

True, but not relevant to this part of the process.

It clearly fits into the Pricelessware freeware category as stated
at http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/WareGlossary.php

"Freeware: Legally obtainable software that you may use at no
cost, monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish."

In what manner does Outlook Express not fit the group's definition
of Freeware?

Your argument and your question have previously been addressed by
several posters in this thread. IMHO it would be better to read the
whole thread before reintroducing.

It is very obvious that someone is trying to change the definition
of 'freeware' after the balloting has already started.

These issues regarding OE have been discussed in this thread, which
began a month ago. They have also been discussed in the group a couple
of times before that. No surprises, no tricks, no late redefinitions.

 

[Roger Johansson]

If on the other hand the licence of ALFA claims it
requires a LICENCE for

We all have to have valid licences for Windows to use any windows
programs, freeware or not.

It doesn't matter to the end user what the wording is in a specific
license text as long as you still need to have a valid Windows license to
use the program.

The rest of your case is just legal mumbo jumbo which could maybe
interest people who study law and want to become lawyers.
It has no practical consequence for the user and we have no reason to get
involved in a highly technical legal stuff which could, or couldn't,
influence the situation in a strictly legal sense.

 

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

No, the difference is that that Microsoft /sells/ you a licence for OE
along with the rest of the OS rather than giving it to you.
Dependencies are not at issue, as Bjorn pointed out.

Yep. MS sells a license for an 'OS suite' containing IE/OE as an essential
part. (As MS does not cease telling the whole world.) As development
improves MS allows registered users to *update* certain parts of these
OS suites for free. There are 'Security patches', 'Service packs', and
(sometimes) IE/OE updates. Please note that you are allowed to update
Win98 and NT 4.0, *but not the older versions*!

Even if you could get IE/OE to run with Win95, Win95 OSR2, or WinNT 3.x,
*technically*, you would *not* be permitted to do so, by law.

If you dig a bit deeper, you'll find out part of the reasons for that
restriction. If you 'update' the older systems with the newer versions
of IE/OE you get a whole deal of the functionality for free, which MS
*sold* as updates to their newer OS versions. In fact: if you can get
all hardware drivers from your hardware vendors (which is possible in
most cases), you could set up a running fake-Win98 or even fake-WinME
with Win95 and newer IE/OE...

BeAr

 

[Susan Bugher]

We all have to have valid licences for Windows to use any windows
programs, freeware or not.

It doesn't matter to the end user what the wording is in a specific
license text as long as you still need to have a valid Windows license to
use the program.

Let's say. . .

You go to a car dealership and the salesman tells you that Chevrolet
will "give" you a spare tire if you purchase one of their cars. You buy
a Chevrolet and the salesmen gives you the address of a warehouse. You
go there and get your tire.

The warehouse doesn't have a watchman. Anyone can get a tire. Someone
else *doesn't* buy a Chevrolet but does go to the warehouse and gets a
tire.

Are both tires legally obtained? Does it make a difference legally if
the second person doesn't own a Chevrolet and can't *use* the tire for
its intended purpose?

Susan

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

The rest of your case is just legal mumbo jumbo which could maybe
interest people who

can think for them selves?

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Roger Johansson]

Let's say. . .

You go to a car dealership and the salesman tells you that Chevrolet
will "give" you a spare tire if you purchase one of their cars. You buy
a Chevrolet and the salesmen gives you the address of a warehouse. You
go there and get your tire.

The warehouse doesn't have a watchman. Anyone can get a tire. Someone
else *doesn't* buy a Chevrolet but does go to the warehouse and gets a
tire.

Why would he get a tyre which can only be used on a Chevrolet?
Windows programs are useless unless you have a Windows operating system.

Are both tires legally obtained?

They are free to download (legally) for anyone, no matter if he has
Windows or not. But only people who have bought Windows have any use for
them. If he _can_ use it he will use it legally, because he has bought
Windows.

Of course they are obtained legally, it is a free download.
(but you actually need a Chevrolet to install and use the tyre, these
tyres cannot be used on any other kind of car)

Does it make a difference legally if
the second person doesn't own a Chevrolet and can't *use* the tire for
its intended purpose?

No. He can still download the file legally. But he has no use for it.
He doesn't have any use for any other Chevrolet tyres (made by other
Chevrolet tyre makers) either, because you need a Chevrolet to have any
use for for them.