On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 10:39 -0400, max wrote: > Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 23:36 -0400, max bianco 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. > > > > If you mean Firefox then Flashblock, Adblock and Noscript are all > > effective. I use all three. > > > > poc > > > Yes I have at one time or another tried and used them all but it strikes > me as wrong to have run software A to keep software B from bothering me. > Why install Flash if your going to block it anyway? Because I can then decide on a case by case basis whether I want to use it. There are flash sites which I want to see, but by default I block them until I can decide. poc -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
