[Sussex] Microsoft fails to comply

[Richie Jarvis]

Geoffrey J Teale wrote:

>Wow... I've been out all day and I come back to all this debate.
>Certainly stimulating if not entirely linux related.
>
>I have to agree with John - the Tories are only going to reduce our
>civil liberties further in the name of being "tough".
>
>On Mark's points.  Yes my argument was of the kind I was criticising
>(overly simplistic), but I do believe that purchasing and resourcing
>should be down centrally (to keep down costs and aid negotiation) and
>medical decisions should be made as locally as possible.
>
>I'm going to repeat my quiz question from last night (sorry if I missed an
>answer from anyone) - One party in the UK has Open Source software use
>as an item in it's manifesto.  Which party is it?
>
>Here's a clue:
>
> "Government at all levels should promote adherence to IT
> standards,particularly open standards, and the use of shareware and
> OSS (Open Source Software) - note that economic theory suggests that
> for optimal wealth creation goods should be priced at the "marginal"
> cost of production - the cost of producing one more unit. This is
> near zero for software, so wider use of OSS is highly economically
> desirable. This is particularly so in developing countries, where
> conventional pricing makes much legal software almost unaffordable.
>
>The <PARTY NAME> strongly opposes software patenting. Copyright works well
>enough to protect IPR (Intellectual Property Rights). The flag of IPR
>must not be used to give more power to rich corporations while
>preventing the general use of useful cheap software."
>
>
>  
>
*grin* Monster Raving Looney Party?