[ubuntu-my] First Malaysian OS?

[zarul shahrin]

I think in you eagerness to prove how smart you are and to prove that I was
wrong, you mixed up my reply to Najmi for his answer to me that I would NEED
to buy to get access to it and my problems with them making various claim
like being the first Malaysian OS and "developed" by Malaysian for
Malaysian.




On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Chow Loong Jin <hyperair at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday 10,March,2011 11:27 AM, zarul shahrin wrote:
> > Let me make your life easier since you're attacking me without fully
> understand
> > my post or just don't bother to scroll up and read;
>
> Then let me make myself more clear, since you are either selectively
> reading my
> posts, or are just not reading.
>
> >
> > Zarul Shahrin:
> >
> > " IF I can get access to a copy"
> >
> > Najmi:
> >
> > "it's commercial, you've to buy them."
> >
> > Zarul Shahrin:
> >
> >     it's commercial, you've to buy them.
>
> Because nobody apart from them is distributing the software. Like I said,
> they
> are not legally obliged to distribute their software for free. And if
> nobody who
> has a copy of the software distributes it, then the only source would be
> from
> them, right?
>
> Let me repeat that. Additional copies are not illegal. The issue is that
> nobody
> has made one, and nobody interested has access to the original to make
> additional copies.
>
> >
> >
> >   This is the problem.  No Understanding of GPL whatsoever.
> >
> > From GPL FAQ:
> >
> > Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software
> must pay
> > me a fee and/or notify me?
> > No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If
> people
> > have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify
> anyone
> > in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free
> software.
> >
> > The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to
> use and
> > even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee
> for
> > doing so.
>
> Which is exactly what I said. And which is not what they are saying.
>
> What they are saying: If you don't pay us, we won't give you updates.
>
> What they did not say, but is true anyway if they abide by GPL: Even if you
> don't pay us, if someone else gives you a copy of the updates, that's still
> legal.
>
> What's actually happening: No third party is redistributing the updates, or
> the
> actual distro itself, although this is legal, assuming they abide by the
> GPL.
>
>
> Can you find something in their website that does not agree with what I
> said?
>
> > [...]
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Loong Jin
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-my/attachments/20110310/7ea0b11d/attachment.html>