Re: [playogg-discuss] playogg/faq: unclear phrase

[ineiev]

Oleg Koptev wrote:
> Our discussion seems to overfloat topic seamlessly :) In any case we're
> reveal some other 'unclear phrases' as I think.

They are still unclear and concerned with the playogg.org pages,
so I think it's OK.

> Absolutely right. I mean man without company status,
> unemployed for that and
> don't receiving any fee from coding that piece of software,
> except maybe donations or other form of free-will encouragement.

Now we can discuss the motives of that man if you wish: why may he
want to keep the software proprietary?
(which is slightly off-topic).

> True. I clearly understand possible reason for spying. But I meant my sure
> about few people, which project are not open-source and in the same time not
> contain any spyware code. Just because it is meaningless for them.

Again (out of curiosity), because you can't imagine any reason
they might have or because you have some other proof?

>  > It is free-will assignation of data to company.
> > * Would the end user actually add those EULA clauses
> >  if the EULA were written by the end user?
>
> Sorry, I can't catch your words. EULA written by the end user? I always
> think that EULA's are written by the companies...

Sure. and the end user have no say there. no free-will.

> > * Is the end user typically aware of those clauses?
>
> If those clauses included in EULA, it is problems of end-user if he's not
> give full attention to what he 'Agree, Continue' :) That's legal education
> issue I think.

Nonetheless, an unconscious free-will assignment is nonsense.

>  > If it is not in EULA it must be punished by law.
> > * There are a lot of ethical issues the law does not cover.
> >
> > * What we want is to stop the companies mistreat the users
> >  rather than to punish anybody.
>
> Agree. But don't you think that in worst case, when some company include
> some spyware in code and DON'T aware about it end-user in any clear form -
> that need to be punished? I think almost all countries have laws about
> privacy, like said in UN Human Rights.

I don't think the punishment is a strong guarantee.
just my personal point of view.

> > Do you think it can be reworded like
> > "You don't lose any technical quality with Ogg."
> > (with no particular codec format specified)?
>
> Technically speaking 'You lose some quality', but generally speaking phrase
> could exist as 'You don't lose any sensible quality with Ogg. Practically.'
> But I must repeat my words about my skills in English - they're not good.

Never mind. the person who runs the campaign is a native speaker, 
he'll fix the linguistic issues easily.