Re: [Fsfe-uk] OFT visit

[ian]

On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 22:30, MJ Ray wrote:
> Andrew, you do not attribute quotes, so I cannot tell for sure what I
> wrote.  I'll just answer bits I have clear ideas about.
> 
> Andrew Atkinson <address@hidden> 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
> > I agree that this is the right result, but I cannot see it happening.
> 
> That tells you more about the monopoly position than it does about the
> justness of the complaint.
> 
> [...]
> > The rest of the software producers have reduced the cost to schools, without
> > the ridiculous clause of having to licence all machines
> 
> How has MS requiring licence purchase for all machines on a site caused
> this?  I don't see the link at all, other than by MS having already
> claimed a huge chunk of school IT budgets, leaving less for competitors,
> in a clear unfair practice.

I tend to agree. The most obvious case of proprietary software suppliers
seeing low (zero) cost bulk licensing in education as a good marketing
ploy is in CAD. Since AutoCad have a monopoly in this area, other
suppliers eg XCAD and ProDesktop give free or very cheap site licenses
to education. This is quite independent of M$. ducation discounts
pre-date the M$ era. As with many things, its tempting to identify M$ as
a cause because its so ubiquitous when in fact others did it a lot
sooner.

-- 
ian <address@hidden>