"We can read the Linspire-Microsoft patent agreement now, or more precisely Microsoft's 'Covenant to Customers', and I thought it would be worthwhile to give it a close, line-by-line reading. I'll explain it as best I can, but ask your lawyer if it matters to you in a real-world sense. For our purposes here, let's just have fun with the worst deal I've seen yet in this category."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
I think your bias is preventing you from seeing that the open source community doesn't seem to give a rats ass how they get their messages across. Sarcasm, FUD (yes, FUD), hate, deception. It's all fair game as long as it knocks Microsoft or other things propietary. I wish the community wouldn't have to sink to that level. A level that corporations love to sink to themselves. But I guess it's ok since it's against Microsoft.
Anything that doesn't put Microsoft in a remotely positive light (not that they deserve that in this case) is used, regardless of how tasteless.
Anyway, go ahead and mod this down. It's getting too off-topic and people don't like to hear the truth anyway.
Member since:2005-07-02
What are you talking about? Sarcasm is a mode of expression that can be very effective in this day and age - look at shows like the Colbert Report and such. Groklaw has their own style, and they're not going to change just because it upsets you.
That said, can you show us what is *so* tasteless in PJ's analysis of the Linspire deal? What passage turned you off so bad that it prevented from getting the point she was trying to make? Please point to us the use of FUD, hate and deception in that article? Because, as far as I'm concerned, the only FUD I see is the one coming from you, trying to divert attention from the message by complaining about the style it was written in.
No. It's all fair game when Microsoft tries to screw the community over. Oh, and what's this sneaky addition of "or other things proprietary"? Again, you're trying to change the subject by insinuating that people who are opposed to Microsoft's shenanigans are against proprietary software. Stick to the subject at hand instead of trying to muddy the waters.
I read PJ's analysis, and it's nowhere as "snarky" or "tasteless" as you claim, unless you've got the strict morals of an Etiquette Tutor.
So to you, PJ's tone may lessen the impact of her argument. Personally, I think it has the opposite effect, just like Colbert is more effective than any other "serious" Liberal pundit.
Member since:2005-10-02
)
Member since:2005-10-02
That does seem to be the conclusion of your behaviour. You are ranting about an existing bias (which NOBODY denies exists) and about a virtually non-existing sarcasm. PJ's article isn't the least bit sarcastic - at least not as sarcasm goes in Denmark. People offended of the blunt truth would have a hard time in Denmark. PJ's article is VERY polite and pleasant-worded (though quite biased).
You are simply complaining because you cannot handle the truth. Truth hurts. Live with it.
Member since:
2005-07-02
As people have already said, PJ has never tried to hide her bias. Knowing this, it's relatively easy to filter it out and just get the facts.
So, basically, you didn't have anything to say about the substance of what she wrote, but you still took time to complain about the style it was written in...again, that seems to me as if you're trying to change the subject and draw attention away from the fact that Linspire got *shafted* by MS with this deal.
I disagree. I find that it actually makes it more interesting to read than the average legal analysis, while being just as informative. I think your bias is simply preventing you from filtering out the commentary part...