[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sunday 30 September 2007 19:09, Neil Williams wrote: > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:48:00 +0100 > > james kilty <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 11:12 +0100, Eion MacDonald wrote: > > > The install button and presence of partitioning programs within Ubuntu > > > [and most big distributions] prohibits it being used in school systems > > > where any CD must *not* install to or *be capable of installing to* > > > the desktop system by regulation. > > > > Is this a legal contract? It sounds like a monopolistic clause to me. Is > > it a point where some leverage may be exerted? -- > > james kilty > > http://www.kilty.demon.co.uk > > Sounds more like an over-officious (deliberate/ignorant) misreading of > some arbitrary local guideline. > > There is no such regulation - there may be local policies but it is not > illegal to have partitioning tools or installers on removable media. > Use of any computer system without the authorisation of the owner of > the equipment may be restricted but the details of what is authorised > and what is not is decided *locally*. > > There is no country-wide legal prohibition of the use of removable > media regarding the presence or absence of installers or partitioning > tools. It simply wouldn't be workable. Any software can be deemed > unauthorised, just as any software can be deemed authorised - the > details of what is in which category is decided locally and therefore > needs to be challenged locally by increasing understanding and > awareness. > > It's not hard to see why administrators would not be keen on > authorising installers and partitioning tools - Windows based > partitioning tools still have a reputation for mangling data and if a > PC is part of an organisation-wide IT network, the network admin (any > network admin) isn't going to be keen on all and sundry installing new > software - whether that is a new game or a new OS. To dress this up as > a "regulation" or "legal obstacle" is just FUD. Its more likely to be local contracts with 'support' services where they have been written to prevent any other operating system being run in a school. You know - the ones where I donate a computer with Linux on it to a school and the company who does the 'support' gets a payment for this even though they refuse to touch it. Cant think who might be behind this. Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html