The reason we bring this subject up yet again is that Microsoft ended up dumping software on a museum; it spins this as usual, calling it "donation". In every sense, this is more like EDGI, i.e. dumping to block competition, disguised as "charity".
Here it is from the news.
The Museum of Science, Boston, has been awarded a $1.9 million technology grant from Microsoft Corp., which has been named a “Premier Partner” for the museum. The company has contributed to the Museum of Science since 1997.
The Redmond, Wa.-based software giant’s corporate support included Microsoft Office products and server and development tools.
Boston's Museum of Science did not need licences to rent Microsoft software. The Boston-based FSF could give the museum solid software to own and to modify forever (as it sees fit); By that definition, as above, the FSF could claim hundreds of billions of dollars in "charity".
To clarify, Microsoft cannot donate unless it's in the interests of shareholders, as in this case. Otherwise it can get sued (added below is a video on this subject, thanks to the "yes men"). Microsoft is not a charity and this is a business decision that turns the museum into a potentially-perpetual Microsoft client with higher exit barriers. The Museum of Science should have refused this 'gift'. The only thing more insulting than this is 'funny money' (see explanations in [1, 2, 3, 4]), where Microsoft offers Microsoft software coupons to pay for the crimes it committed. ⬆
"Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free."
--Richard Stallman
Update: we now have an Ogg version.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
If the election is run by platforms that have back doors "baked-in" and if the communications are overseen by GAFAM, you would not have to be a "nutty MAGAt" to dispute the outcome
"It means a situation in which somebody accuses someone else of a fault which the accuser shares, and therefore is an example of psychological projection, or hypocrisy. Use of the expression to discredit or deflect a claim of wrongdoing by attacking the originator of the claim for their own similar behaviour (rather than acknowledging the guilt of both) is the tu quoque logical fallacy."
