Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



--- 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

[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux