Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: cpu-x
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 03:28:23 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <v21a4n$lc8c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1b791$2ln8f$2@dont-email.me> <v1betu$2p8gq$1@dont-email.me>
	<66399f10$0$6551$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <v1f0m2$3ot7f$3@dont-email.me>
	<v1fr57$3urp9$3@dont-email.me> <v1jqfo$v3os$3@dont-email.me>
	<663fba6f$1$6436$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <v1rjs9$31trl$2@dont-email.me>
	<66420697$1$8482$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <v1u5l4$3nmqc$4@dont-email.me>
	<6643705f$1$2363137$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 05:28:24 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4d4aedf679ded96940a30b060ea00e24";
	logging-data="700684"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX199NBadtu6jvn3+J2KgZxzr"
User-Agent: Pan/0.155 (Kherson; fc5a80b8)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TbTMSyuslNBtB+bswgvYOH4BhT0=
Bytes: 2781

On Tue, 14 May 2024 10:08:31 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 5/13/2024 6:53 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 13 May 2024 08:25:09 -0400, DFS wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5/12/2024 7:37 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 11 May 2024 14:35:35 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What, you never read that stupid, impenetrable, restrictive GuhNoo
>>>>> GPL 3 (under which CPU-X is released)?
>>>>
>>>> I have. I also followed the very public and transparent process under
>>>> which the FSF put together that licence, with a lot of public
>>>> consultation along the way.
>>>
>>> Never underestimate the stupidity of the public.
>> 
>> Hey, you are the ones clicking on proprietary EULAs without even
>> reading them.
> 
> And your kind accepts FOSS EULAs without reading them.

We do read open-source licences and understand them. They are designed to 
be read and understood. Unlike proprietary EULAs.

Case in point: the question you were asking about below.

>> We in the Open Source world actually get to choose our licences.
> 
> What are you babbling about?
> 
> FOSS and proprietary devs can choose any license they want, or write
> one.

Proprietary devs, yes. FOSS devs need to choose something that fits the 
definition of “FOSS”. Otherwise it won’t be, you know, “FOSS”.

>>> And can the IDIOT lawyer that wrote this part be disbarred for IDIOCY?
>> 
>> Look up “Tivoization”.
> 
> Why?

So you can understand the answer to your own question.