On Thursday 29 December 2005 08:00 pm, Ken Elliott wrote:
> >> You go to a junk yard where they give away parts
> >> Now who is at fault that you have no breaks?
>
> In your example, you decided to purchase a car, made from JUNK parts. You
> have to accept that the car may be less than perfect. That is part of the
> implied deal of building a car from free parts you get at a junk yard.
Pickie pickie what does that substract b\from the principal idea?
>
> >> Money was paid for a quality product. That product was not delivered.
>
> That is fraud.
>
> Sorry, it is not. Read the EULA. It's a shame, and a disappointment, but
> it is not fraud. But didn't you say you downloaded the software? I'm not
> clear on what you paid for.
The EURL applies to software. Fraud is when someone promises one thing and
delivers another in a chimerical contract. EURL which are not visible before
one purchases may and courts have ruled both ways or may not be valid
themselves being a form of fraud. That is once a contract has been entered
and agreeded to by BOTH parties one party can not unilateral change the terms
of the contract after the fact. Ones enteres into the contract when one
surrenders money and the other party surrenders the goods based on the terms
stated at that time. If no terms are stated at or before the conclusion of
the sale then a contract can not be changed afterwards by making one party
agree to terms not previous stated. Beat way for you to began to understand
all the fine points of contracts as related to software is to read ALL of
www.groklaw.net.
>
> >> It is just as much fraud and illegal when Microsoft does it as when Red
>
> Hat, SuSE, and Mandrake do it.
>
> >> Now do you understand.
>
> Yes. You want a perfect world. It doesn't exist.
>
> You want a perfect product, but that's NOT what is being sold. The license
> agreement says there may be bugs and other defects, and you should test it
> to be sure it will work. That is not an unreasonable thing - designing
> software to work on any-and-all PCs is almost impossible. Toyota will not
> guarantee you that a new car will be perfect, nor will they guarantee it
> will make it around any corner at any speed. These are imperfect things in
> an imperfect world.
>
> That being said, please note that there are a large number of us who have
> install the products, with little-to-no problems. That would suggest that
> it is not the fault of the product.
All I can say is that in a court of law all you have stated would be declared
as farout as The SACO Group's concept of ownership.
>
> Ken Elliott
PS: This is my last post on this. If you want to understand it to a higher
depth go visit Groklaw. You will be amazed at what you find.
>
> =====================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: slug@nks.net [mailto:slug@nks.net] On Behalf Of SOTL
> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 2:35 PM
> To: slug@nks.net
> Subject: Re: [SLUG] Debian
>
> On Thursday 29 December 2005 10:02 am, Ken Elliott wrote:
> > >>BY THE WAY DON"T BITCH THAT YOU PAID CHEAP CHARLIE FOR A COMPLETE
> >
> > FUNCTIONAL CAR AND DID"T GET ONE.
> >
> > Perhaps I am misreading your message.... But.... It seems like Charlie
> > GAVE you a FREE car, and you don't know how to install a stereo in it,
> > and are complaining to Charlie's friends that Charlie should have put
> > it in for you. On the surface, it doesn't seem like this approach is a
> > good way to get help from Charlie's friends.
> >
> > Is your point that commercial distos need improvement, and easy
> > installation? I agree. I also see that it has greatly improved.
>
> Try it this way then.
>
> You go to a junk yard where they give away parts - all good excellent car
> parts. There are parts of ever sort such that you can build an infinite
> number of different cars. All you have to do is put it together.
>
> Now since you do not have the expertise to do that you walk across the
> street to cheap charlie who will procede to go across the street, get the
> required parts, return and then build your car. You purchase a car.
>
> Your car is finished, you pick it up and start driving down the street and
> suddenly find you have no breaks.
>
> Now who is at fault that you have no breaks? Is it you, the manufacture,
> the vendor of the parts to the manufacture? Recall you purchased a car,
> completely fully assembled and operational.
>
> The vendor of the parts to the manufacture? How could this be the parts
> were given to the manufacture free, as is and without warranty?
>
> Or could it possible be the manufacture who did a very sloppy job of
> assemble, did not test critical systems, and did not supply what the client
> bought?
>
> See a lot of people here refuse to accept the reality that Red Hat, SuSE, &
> Mandrake are selling commercial software and that all three are public
> companies with stockholders. It matters not where they got their source of
> labor to do the manufacturing; how much they paid the labors, or what the
> labor as do. That is all on the manufacture side of the supply equation.
>
> It likewise matters not where the manufacture got it source of raw material
> or how much was pad for it. That too is on the supply side [to the
> manufacture] equation.
>
> All that matters in a sale of product is that the manufacture offers a
> product for sale and that some one purchases it. That is what you do when
> you go to a store and buy anything. The store gives you goods; you give the
> store money.
> Along with that transaction goes two implied guarantees. First the store
> demands [and the law too for that matter] that you give the store real
> money.
> Stores get most pissed when you obtain goods by fraud. The is that the
> store [manufacture] gives you a quality product. Passing off inferior goods
> is just as much fraud as passing of passing off bad money.
>
> Money was paid for a quality product. That product was not delivered. That
> is fraud. It is just as much fraud and illegal when Microsoft does it as
> when Red Hat, SuSE, and Mandrake do it.
>
> Now do you understand.
>
> SOTL
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
> Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted
> are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy
> or position of NKS or any of its employees.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
> Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
> posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
> official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:27:59 EDT