Hi :) The MS Office Eula makes similar claims on the rights of work produced using their software. MS owns your work! You don't! It'd be interesting to see that one stand up in court though. Too many precedents exist where MS has not fought to enforce that part of their own Eula. So, I can't imagine any judge anywhere allowing that. Hmm, maybe MS have changed their Eula since i last read it thoroughly about a decade or so ago.
I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole. I want to steer towards using formats that will be around and usable in a few years time. I want to be able to open documents maybe 10-20 years from now without having to struggle against malware and without having to try to find long-dead versions of long dead software produced by a company that may not even exist by then. What i tend to find is that people use all sorts of rubbishy excuses for why they 'cant' move away from certain software. They moan and grumble about petty issues in an alternative they have been handed but then go and find some other alternative that they feel more in control of because they chose it. Once they have made the break away from that certain software they become more reasonable about looking at other alternatives realistically. One of the commonest grumbles i hear about LO (at the moment) is that it uses the old interface and not the nice new ribbon-bar. So, 'obviously' LO is old! (Easy to see how FUD develops, right?). Kingsoft neatly deal with that and such grumblers can now be pointed towards that as an alternative. Of course when i do that i will still be quite disparaging about the ribbon-bar specifically and about proprietary software (and formats) in general but at least now i can sound like it's not "just sour grapes", just because LO hasn't got it. Now i can be seen to be offering genuine choices rather than trying to herd people in a direction they might not want to go. Of course any fool that does escape the one trap by jumping into another is still able to completely jump free by trying out LO at some point in the future. Perhaps by then they will be ready. Regards from Tom :) >________________________________ > From: Jay Lozier <[email protected]> >To: Tom Davies <[email protected]> >Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 1:46 >Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO >alternative is not LO > > >On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:09:48 -0400, Tom Davies <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> Hi :) >> That comment looks like FUD to me. Where are the links to substantiate >> his claims? There is a lot of FUD about China at the moment. Perhaps >> some is true but western journalism has it's own biases so getting at >> the truth is a tad tricky. >> Also it's not Cnet that are recommending Kingsoft. It's only the >> author's opinion. PLus it's got a question mark after it. If you >> search through Cnet you will probably find similar claims in titles of >> articles about LibreOffice >> >> >> This page in Wikipedia >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_office_suites >> shows Kingsoft has been around since 1988 and is available for Windows >> and Gnu&Linux (incl Android). LibreOffice's first release date is >> listed as 2010 which just shows how tricky it is to adequately report on >> such things. Many people would say the first release of LO is the same >> as OpenOffice and that should be the same as StarOffice's first release >> date over a decade ago. I just had to do a little editing there myself >> but if you check the history you can see that the lines about Kingsoft >> have been unchanged for ages, possibly years. >> >> Regards from >> >> Tom :) >> >Kingsoft appears to use a proprietary format with MSO support. Also, they >only have Writer, Calc, and Impress equivalents. Those two issues make me >wary about the package: poor ODF support and limit suite. The ODF issue is >philosophical; I prefer to use an open, ISO format that means my files are >much less likely to be orphans in future. Most long time computer users >have data that is in obsolete file formats if not on obsolete media. >> >> >> >> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster <[email protected]> >>> To: LibreO - Marketing Global <[email protected]>; >>> LibreO - Users Global <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013, 19:48 >>> Subject: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO >>> alternative is not LO >>> >>> >>> >>> I never even heard of this office packages company. >>> >>> If the commenter is correct, then CNET really need to rethink their >>> recommendations. >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> >>> >>> http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33153_7-57587824-10391733/kingsoft-office-2013-the-best-free-microsoft-office-alternative/ >>> >>> >>> Kingsoft Office 2013: The best free Microsoft Office alternative? >>> >>> Not only does it have the best interface around, it also brings >>> innovations like tabbed document viewing and drag-and-drop paragraph >>> adjustment. >>> Rick Broida >>> by Rick Broida >>> June 5, 2013 10:52 AM PDT >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> One of the replies to that article is as follows >>> --------------- >>> >>> the_brigadier >>> 25 minutes ago >>> >>> You do know Kingsoft is a communist Chinese company whose nation has >>> been conducting unrelenting hack attacks to strip America of all its >>> technology? If you can't build it, steal it is their credo. What better >>> way to open up a million backdoors then by offering free software that >>> exactly emulates Microsoft's flagship program. >>> >>> By the way read their EULA very carefully. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT >>> ANYTHING CREATED USING THEIR SOFTWARE BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF KINGSOFT. >>> Have you read it Karyn? I downloaded this software several years ago >>> read that EULA and used Revo to deepscan uninstall that software. It had >>> put tendrils all through my computer. Revo is very good and got it all, >>> but don't be fooled. >>> >>> This is part and parcel to China's hacking attempts and for cnet to >>> recommend it is both incredibly naive and questionable at best. >>> >I doubt the reviewer ever read the Kingsoft EULA (nor have I). Though you >do bring a good point about EULA's being highly anti-consumer as typically >written by most properietary software companies. I would not be surprised >if some EULA's by others claim ownership of all documents created by the >package. > > >-- >Jay Lozier >[email protected] > > > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
