[ale] OT: Microsoft moves to comply with DOJ settlement deal]

[cfowler]

On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 15:50, Geoffrey wrote:
> Fulton Green wrote:
> > Yeah, but the inline comments also mentioned that the APIs would be fee-
> > based, so that was what I was calling attention to.
> 
> That's why I suggested you check out the url, which does indicate the 
> free api's.
> 
> 
> Maybe the original
> > poster to the newsgroup was describing another set of APIs. Not that it
> > matters a whole lot; turns out even the most basic Visual Studio .NET
> > package will set you back at least $600 (or $1000 if you don't have an
> > upgrade path). There are stand-alone editions of Visual C++ and Visual C#
> > for $110 each, but still, why should I have to pay for the privilege of
> > developing for M$ OSen when I can develop for Linux or Java for free?!?

Because employess at M$ have Children, Spouses, etc.. They need food and
shelter and nice cars.  But I totally agree on Non-profit = Non-Fee. 
Profit = Fee.  Even on the OpenSource side I feel this way.  Which could
be a little strong. If you want to make a buck on someone's free
contribution, then they need a piece of that pie.
> 
> There you go.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 02:46:24PM -0400, Geoffrey wrote:
> > 
> >>Fulton Green wrote:
> >>
> >>>FUD alert ... the PressPass article I read (available at
> >>>http://www.Microsoft.com/presspass/legal/aug02/08-05settlementmilestones.asp )
> >>>indicates that the APIs will be available at "no additional charge". I'm
> >>>assuming that the "original charge" in this case would be the cost of
> >>>purchasing the Visual Studio IDE and NOT the cost of licensing the
> >>>proprietary protocols.
> >>>
> >>What I see from this link matches what I see on the Microsoft link you 
> >>provided.  At issue is this piece:
> >>
> >>The availability of approximately 113 proprietary protocols that server 
> >>vendors can license and use as a new way of achieving interoperability 
> >>with Windows desktops.
> >>
> >>Note the wording 'vendors can license,' meaning PAY FOR.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 02:07:46PM -0400, Geoffrey wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>As usual, Microsoft is doing it their way.  I've left the comments of 
> >>>>the original poster as they have some insight, but check out the url for 
> >>>>yourself.
> >>>>
> >>>>Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>>This came over a bit ago, courtesy of Computerworld. I strongly suggest
> >>>>
> > ...
> > 
> >>>>to do this gratis, given that they appear to have escaped a fine; the second
> >>>>thing is the APIs will also be fee-based, and lastly, there is a digital
> >>>>
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at 3times25.net
> 
> I didn't have to buy my radio from a specific company to listen
> to FM, why doesn't that apply to the Internet (anymore...)?
> 
> 
> ---
> This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
> sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> 
> 
> 



---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.