The Linux experience - ugly, bad, and good - Re: Random Hesitations: The new threat to windummy productivity in the office
in [UK Linux]
|
Prev: Pinnacle and Dazzle
Next: The Linux experience - ugly, bad, and good - Re: Random Hesitations: The new threat to windummy productivity in the office
From: Rex Ballard on 13 Apr 2010 00:35 On Apr 11, 9:23 am, "Ezekiel" <M...(a)Not-there.com> wrote: > "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:47230c75-76d5-4e0e-a124-c9c69355367c(a)y36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > On Apr 11, 8:25 am, "Ezekiel" <M...(a)Not-there.com> wrote: > >> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:dc9385f7-bafd-4684-905e-bab6c8a055ff(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > > As you know, actual license costs are only available to officers of > > the court, as part of the antitrust settlement. The license rates are > > sealed, and even then, I did have access to OEM license information, and have access to corporate license terms. But I can't publish them. If you've read the licenses, you know why. > So in other words YOU HAVE NO CLUE what the license agreements are. That's not what I said. I only said that I could not publish them. > So why do you lie and make claims? If you want to prove that I'm lying, then you'll have to come up with a copy of the OEM License agreements and publish it to this newsgroup. Otherwise, you can't prove whether I'm lying or not. Remember, until recently, my employer WAS an OEM. They are also a corporate customer. I regularly have to review license terms to make sure that no one on our team violates the license terms of either my employer's license agreements, or the client's license agreement. In many cases, I also have to bring in my employer's legal team, to make sure that we stay in compliance. It's one of the many duties of an IT Architect. > > so, no, you won't be getting any proof, and by now, I'm sure all of > > the evidence at the organization where all this took place - has long > > been shredded, > So YOU HAVE NO PROOF. I'm saying that I do not have forms of proof that could be legally published. > So why do you LIE? You can prove that I'm lying? Publish the documents that prove me wrong. You can't, because Microsoft won't let you.
From: Ezekiel on 13 Apr 2010 09:09
> >"Rex Ballard" <rex.ballard(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:3bcbfe22-c0de-45e2-9955-130d463e2593(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... >On Apr 11, 9:23 am, "Ezekiel" <M...(a)Not-there.com> wrote: >> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:47230c75-76d5-4e0e-a124-c9c69355367c(a)y36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> > On Apr 11, 8:25 am, "Ezekiel" <M...(a)Not-there.com> wrote: >> >> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:dc9385f7-bafd-4684-905e-bab6c8a055ff(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > >If you want to prove that I'm lying, then you'll have to come up with >a copy of the OEM License agreements and publish it to this >newsgroup. Otherwise, you can't prove whether I'm lying or not. > >Remember, until recently, my employer WAS an OEM. Correct, IBM was an OEM. >They are also a corporate customer. > >I regularly have to review license terms to make sure that no one on >our team violates the license terms of either my employer's license >agreements, or the client's license agreement. In many cases, I also >have to bring in my employer's legal team, to make sure that we stay >in compliance. It's one of the many duties of an IT Architect. Bullshit. As an "IT Architect" you work for a completely different division of IBM than their hardware manufacturing division. As an IT architect your job in no way shape or form has anything to do with the OEM contracts for their desktop and laptop manufacturing business. >> So why do you LIE? > >You can prove that I'm lying? It's up to you to prove *your* claims - not the other way around. |