Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
Patrick O'Callaghan
pocallaghan at gmail.com
Sat Apr 26 15:23:43 UTC 2008
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 at pacbell.net> 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
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list