On Sat, 2005-04-09 at 16:47 -0500, Rod Engelsman wrote: > G. Roderick Singleton wrote: > > > > > I see, we have distributors who issue CDs. I see no logic in your > > argument. > > > > And they are allowed to charge for the privilege. >
Strawman. Okay I'll bite. $30 + shipping is hardly reasonable for a product of which we know nothing. > > > > >>Do you ask every user you help where they got the software or if they > >>have donated time or money to OOo? > > > > > > No, only those who wish to profit by others work without recompense. > > > > > > > > > As I said before, you can do what you want. I do not have a problem with > > that. I do have a problem with you expecting me to do what you do. I am > > not in the business of giving away my efforts to for profit enterprizes > > for no pay. > > > > > > So let's say someone is using OOo productively in their business. Not > selling or distributing the software itself, but just using it. Let's > get even more direct... the user is a professional writer who charges > for his work. Do you discriminate against them as well? After all, > wouldn't that be "giving away [your] efforts to [a] for profit > enterprize for no pay"? > THey have an obligation to go to their distributor to get support. Considering there are many cd distributors listed who do not re-label and do support the project by providing cds near cost there is no reason for anyone to get a cd that is re-labeled. Your problem seems to be that I must do what you do. Sorry that is not an option I would consider viable. I want to have the right to choose what actions I take. You, in turn, are also allowed to do that. Or are you saying that only you and others like you can make these descisions and the rest of us must do what you want us to? I hope not. > AFAICT, the most legitimate gripe you can have against COSMI is that > they renamed the package. BUT, they don't appear to have otherwise > modified it. If the software has been modified then it's completely > justifiable to say we can't support it. If Cosmi or you believe you have this right, go ahead. Please don't argue with me. I do not care about your personal ethics, morals or attitudes. They are yours. As for me, I refuse to support scum sucking bottom feeders who think they can exploit this list and me to feather their own nest. Fro example, they claim the version 1.2. Well, I, for one, have never heard or seen a version of OOo with this release number. Further, their site names their suite Perfect Office, again, which I have never encountered. If they wish to continue to be listed then I suggest that they support the project with money or lots of development hours which, so far, they are not doing. Now as to users who buy form Cosmi or any other such company, then they should take their problems to their vendor. They paid their money and took their chances and have to take responsibility for their own actions. > > So what about the version that Redhat supplies with Fedora? I'm using > 1.1.3 from their repository, and I can see where they have made a few > changes. They appear to be minor, but it is still modified. Can *I* ask > you questions? > I do not support it. It is not OpenOffice.org. -- PLEASE KEEP MESSAGES ON THE LIST. Documentation Co-Lead http://documentation.openoffice.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
