RE: [Fsfe-uk] OFT visit

[ian]

On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 18:52, Andrew Atkinson wrote:
> >No, the right result could be that the licence fees are calculated
> >based on machines using the licensed code, rather than just on number
> >of machines.
> 
> I agree that this is the right result, but I cannot see it happening.
> 
> >Campus agreement for colleges is based on users so
> >why is MSSA different. Logically if the grounds for MSSA were simplicity
> >why not do the same for Campus agreement of vice versa?
> 
> Also licences on the number of users is no good, that could mean one would
> cost as much as hundreds on a system, whatever else was running, where is
> the incentive for a partial change there.

I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. If we establish the principle
now with something focussed, there is some chance that the OFT will then
move on to Campus agreement. One step at a time.


> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 08:13:40PM +0100, Andrew Atkinson wrote:
> > > Nothing to do
> > > with the fact schools have to licence all 586 type machines and above
> > > whatever they run.
> >
> > Did you bring this up with the OFT? What argument does MS use to
> > justify this
> > bizarre "someone else's hardware licensing" scheme?
> 
> I have mentioned it in the reply to the OFT.
> >
> > If MS use this case as a reason to get rid of the Schools Agreement,
> > I will be wondering whether they were already planning to do that and
> > just found a handy scapegoat.
> >
> > I'm a little confused by your later claim.  How has MS requiring you to
> > pay for machines not running their software had any effect on their
> > competitors' pricing?  Surely whatever the competitor does will have no
> > effect because the school has already bought MS?
> >
> 
> The rest of the software producers have reduced the cost to schools, without
> the ridiculous clause of having to licence all machines
> 
> 
> > >
> > > Celeron's and AMDs would both be Pentium-class, as they are
> > instruction-level
> > > compatible with Pentiums (IIRC).
> >
> > Yes that's what it says in MSSA.
> 
> Not what the producers say and thy have been coming in pretty hard on other
> chip producers not to use the phrase Pentium Class. To be honest who cares
> about the names.
> 
> As an aside, the OFT questionnaire had a table that you could request an
> electronic version of. Apart from the fact that it was a badly set out table
> and already had the fields filled in,  (I am planning to use it on Tuesday
> with my year 8 {12-13 year olds} so they can comment on corrections) it came
> in MSWord 2000 format, as do most documents from the government. This is one
> of the first problems to solve.

But it won't get solved without the opportunity to raise it. If nothing
else we have the full and undivided attention of the OFT so we can make
these points as we go along. Without the action it would all just get
ignored.

>  Most teachers will be sent electronic media
> in MS format by the gov so they expect every machine to treat it as native.
> I know other programs do coupe with this but it is not always seamless or
> successful.



> As you lot seem to have some exciting ideas, any idea about a format I
> should send it back in. (I'll include a MS version just to make sure they
> can read it)

OO.org XML. They have a copy of OO/org cos I gave it to them :-) No
excuse now not to be able to read OO.org files on any machine ;-)


> Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fsfe-uk mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
-- 
ian <address@hidden>