--- max bianco <maximilianbianco@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Les > <hlhowell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 13:45 -0500, Les Mikesell > wrote: > > > Why should I be interested in a distribution > that makes it > > > difficult > > > for me to make my own choices about whether a > license is acceptable > > > or > > > not? I don't have a problem with downloading my > own copy of any > > > particular code from any particular place under > any conditions that I > > > find acceptable. > > But that is the problem. The folks with > proprietary want to limit your > > use to only the systems they have chosen to > support, thus you can end up > > with instruments or software that you have > purchased that will not run > > when the OS changes. Furthermore their licenses > forbid you from reverse > > engineering the code to figure out how to make it > work some where else, > > and the owner of the proprietary OS won't let you > do any reverse > > engineering legally to figure out how to > interface to the software or > > hardware he/she/it chooses to no longer support. > Thus you are obsoleted > > with no legal recourse. Those lovely sites where > you download such > > utilities are often legally not clean to use > either, depending upon the > > laws that the various entities have seen fit to > pass. Finally your own > > documents, code and other encoded data may be > unaccessable to you > > either, because the formatting, encoding, > encryption or compression may > > be proprietary and non disclosed with the > attendant no reverse > > engineering clauses, leaving you without access > even to your own > > material. > > > > That is why these licenses, and the subject of > libre or free software is > > important. > > > > Regards, > > Les H > > > > > Adobe Flash is something I can't for the life of me > figure out why > anyone would use. You can't kill the adds like you > can with gnash and > it leaves a gaping security hole in everything it > touches. > Max > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > On adobe flash, you bring up an interesting point, ads are everywhere, if adobe flash is not present, you cannot do anything. You need it to do many things view many webpages, it is hard to deal with, but without it you will have a hard time doing anything on the net. It is sad but true. I do not see how the alternatives can do the same job. I find the comment interesting as well here > Why should I be interested in a distribution > that makes it difficult for me to make my own > choices about whether a license is acceptable > or not? I don't have a problem with downloading my > own copy of any particular code from any particular > place under any conditions that I find acceptable. It is very legitimate. If something does not work the way you want it, you have to go your own way and while Fedora does not open the doors fully open, it does not close the doors to you either. You are still free to incorporate the code that you need/desire and it will run in Fedora some with more problems than others. One that I find hard to deal with is xine. I remember Totem very well and the dicussions that it has brought up many times before and many concise arguments for and against it. The free/vs nonfree stuff. If it were up to me and many other users, there should be no totem no "free stuff nor nonfree stuff", we should go snatch the stuff that we want and we install it. That is it no this is not free/not legal/good/verses it is included by default and you cannot do much with it because the rest of the world closes you out. You have to get the *prohibited/nonfree software* because the the other guys require it. The source is there go and get it, install it yourself, Fedora will not be liable/held accountable for software that we install on our own. It is for our own use and we should determine what we install on our machines. I see what Ubuntu does, but then again it only offers you to make your life easier, but does not include the nonfree stuff(with some exceptions nvidia*) like mint/pclinuxos or other distros which include it. It is still does not make them any better/any worse than fedora. I can have the same in Fedora only it will take a little bit more work, but I am happy with it and it works for me. If some software is illegal, what will the big guys do to a little guy? Will they sue me because I have nonfree stuff? What will they do to me? I can see the logic for the big corporations and companies, but for the little guys, the home users, it does not make much sense. Either way, I respect the decision by the Fedora Board and I am happy to use Fedora. I'll try to deal with the problems on a one by one basis. Regards, Antonio ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
