On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 09:58, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:52:50PM +0800, hkcc1976 wrote:
> > >
> > > I presume here everyone use and love Linux and does NOT like MS's monoply.
> > > I once run across a tech coloumn, saying
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:52:50PM +0800, hkcc1976 wrote:
> >
> > I presume here everyone use and love Linux and does NOT like MS's monoply.
> > I once run across a tech coloumn, saying that the lability clause in EULA
> > may have some legal problem.
If every computer USER wise up, that could wake hovac! Spread the fire!
Re: On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:52:50PM +0800, hkcc1976 wrote:
Re: >
Re: > I presume here everyone use and love Linux and does NOT like MS's monoply.
Re: > I once run across a tech coloumn, saying that the lability clause in E
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:52:50PM +0800, hkcc1976 wrote:
>
> I presume here everyone use and love Linux and does NOT like MS's monoply.
> I once run across a tech coloumn, saying that the lability clause in EULA
> may have some legal problem.
It isn't the only one, apparently.
http://news.com.co
Hi everyone,
I presume here everyone use and love Linux and does NOT like MS's monoply. I once
run across a tech coloumn, saying that the lability clause in EULA may have some legal
problem. i.e. Software companies may NOT be able to weave all responsibility of all
the damage directly and indi
