Discrimination based on OS?

[Samuel Thurston, III]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Fred Roller <froller at tnclimited.com> wrote:
> Samuel Thurston, III wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Michael <mmorse757 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OS's.   If someone can not access resources due to a proprietary
>>> protocol that can not be obtained without purchasing, then the user
>>> definitely has a valid issue.
>>>
>>
>> A valid issue without doubt, but still not discrimination.
>>
>> The only optional thing which is considered discrimination (in the
>> U.S. at least) is religion, and I don't think we want to go so far as
>> to classify Linux zealotry in this category.
>>
>>
> I agree about "Discrimination" may be too strong a word.  The spirit of
> the word was meant as "actively singling out".
>

Your original request was in a sense ambiguous.  You originally asked

> Can a case be made against State funded Universities that restricting
> access to resources be made based OS be considered discrimination?

Do you wish to make a case to the IT staff, to university
administration, to a state regency, to legislators?  The case can be
made any number of ways, but it must be tailored to your audience.
Bottom line with almost all of these people is money, (or in the case
of IT staff, time) which will be hard fought, since there has to be a
clear benefit to adding to IT's workload.

It's my opinion that using the word 'discrimination', regardless of
how you mean it, will undermine your argument.