Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
max
maximilianbianco at gmail.com
Sat Apr 26 14:39:09 UTC 2008
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?
Max
More information about the users
mailing list