Our discussion seems to overfloat topic seamlessly :) In any case we're reveal some other 'unclear phrases' as I think.
2010/5/4 Ineiev <[email protected]> > > If a man can be an army, a man can easily be a company; generally, all > companies > are run by some people. > Absolutely right. I mean man without company status, unemployed for that and don't receiving any fee from coding that piece of software, except maybe donations or other form of free-will encouragement. > I'm sure about few :) Why? Just because I know there're no reason to spy > for > > them (people coding that software). Just because. > > That is, you don't know any reason to spy (?) > > However, I think you are right, there must be some proprietary players > which are not spyware. > True. I clearly understand possible reason for spying. But I meant my sure about few people, which project are not open-source and in the same time not contain any spyware code. Just because it is meaningless for them. > It is free-will assignation of data to company. > > * Would the end user actually add those EULA clauses > if the EULA were written by the end user? > Sorry, I can't catch your words. EULA written by the end user? I always think that EULA's are written by the companies... > > * Is the end user typically aware of those clauses? > If those clauses included in EULA, it is problems of end-user if he's not give full attention to what he 'Agree, Continue' :) That's legal education issue I think. > If it is not in EULA it must be punished by law. > > * There are a lot of ethical issues the law does not cover. > > * What we want is to stop the companies mistreat the users > rather than to punish anybody. > Agree. But don't you think that in worst case, when some company include some spyware in code and DON'T aware about it end-user in any clear form - that need to be punished? I think almost all countries have laws about privacy, like said in UN Human Rights. >> But the paragraph does compare MP3 and Ogg Vorbis. > > Really? Where exactly? I see only comparison about relative size. > > Probably the wording is careless, indeed. I thought it implied MP3 because > the page did not mention other proprietary formats (even in form > "other formats"). > > Do you think it can be reworded like > "You don't lose any technical quality with Ogg." > (with no particular codec format specified)? > Technically speaking 'You lose some quality', but generally speaking phrase could exist as 'You don't lose any sensible quality with Ogg. Practically.' But I must repeat my words about my skills in English - they're not good. > Kindest regards, > Ineiev > >From me too again, Oleg
