Re: [seul-edu] [Fwd: Re: Request for critique of a MS rebuttal]

["Stephen C. Daukas" <stephen@daukas.com>]

At 06:41 PM 5/3/2002, Doug wrote:
>Here are some ideas of how I might approach it (up to about halfway 
>through your piece).  Feel free to steal as much or as little as you'd like.
>
>Dean
>
>  LINUX ENABLES SAFE COMPUTER DONATIONS TO SCHOOLS
>
>The Internet, Thursday, 02 May 2002: In an official announcement from the 
>SEUL group today, spokesman Leon Brooks cleared up confusion created by 
>Microsoft's misleading draconian statements on the acceptance of donated 
>computers by schools and other needy organisations.

Get rid of the word "Draconian"...  It serves no useful purpose and sets an 
unprofessional tone.

>"Microsoft claims that it is a legal requirement that pre-installed 
>operating systems remain with the computer for the life of the 
>computer,"he said.  "Like viruses and security issues, that problem is a 
>Microsoft problem, not a computing problem."

I go back to my previous shot at this statement to make it more accurate, 
as it is not currently, and more even handed:

"like the majority of viruses and other security vulnerabilities, the 
issue(s) of [restate for clarity if necessary] plagues Microsoft products 
at a much higher rate than GNU/Linux distributions [insert industry numbers 
here]"

>Nobody should use any  Microsoft software in violation of the Microsoft 
>license and the easiest way to avoid that, especially for someone working 
>with donated equipment, is to avoid Microsoft software.
>
>The reasons become clear when you think about the nature of donated 
>equipment.  First, you can never be completely sure that a donated 
>computer is in compliance with its license.  Has the mother board been 
>swapped out? Did the installed OS start out on another machine 
>altogether?  Microsoft's policy of tying software licenses to machines and 
>their aggressive enforcement practices combine to make
>Microsoft software a poor and dangerous choice for powering
>donated computers.

Now that we have an informed opinion from a lawyer friend, why not find a 
way to use it in a re-write of the above paragraph?  It would lend some 
teeth to the position...

Steve