Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Sep 2010 20:57 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 440910
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-09-08
I think you are overestimating the marginal cost at $1. If the affected parties are not aware of the license, then you have to assume they have either bought or pirated the software. So there is no additional cost to Microsoft. They are just renouncing the right the later sue the parties. Being NGOs that probably wouldn't bring in any money to Microsoft, and would probably affect Microsoft negatively if PR-value is considered. All in all, this is a free move. Only the office to advocate the new deal has any real cost associated to it.