A News.com reader writes that the story on the Microsoft/PCs for Kids dispute is lacking analysis.
How about some analysis?
In response to the Aug. 1 article "Australia charity riled by Gates? good will":
The story on the Microsoft/PCs for Kids dispute is lacking analysis. Where in the license agreement of the software did it state that a charity could use it without paying?
Because Microsoft was not willing to donate $205,000 to this particular charity, does this make the charity right? What if I said my church needed a dozen Oracle server licenses to meet their mission to AIDS victims? Would it be OK for me to steal the software and then bitch at Larry Ellison until he gave it to me? Or if I needed a hundred Adobe Acrobat licenses to publish...anti-smoking tracts? Should I steal the software and then expect Adobe to give in?
How about getting Ford to donate 2000 model year Expeditions to a charity that gives cars to the jobless and homeless so that they can live in them and drive to work?
Guess it's OK just to take them off the lots.
From the tone of your articles, it would seem that if one yells about the cause long enough, it's all right to steal. How about some analysis from the legal side of the house stating how the charity erred by not getting resources from their contributors without stealing from a big company?
Charity means love and respect. The Aussies are obviously not respecting the folks in Seattle who depend on this stuff for their livelihood. Part of the gift to the kids is giving them legally things they can use. The other part of the gift to the kids would be teaching them to respect the rights of others. Putting pressure on companies to donate stuff they haven't agreed to is morally wrong!
Stealing is not charity. If folks in Australia want free software, have them install Linux and StarOffice.
Patrick M. Chefalo