Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!postmaster.netnews.com!us4.netnews.com!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=??6]<g54F58CNhF]MV;ML<HWonT5<]0T=Q;nb^V>PUf65[gZBW6J?L<ZHjmnLVPdB=9^@nP7hG;F6I3;a:ijW>:63_;13J7?Z0<B::GSaLS3B7IaaghgoVND3ZEGcC5`<fF2
X-Complaints-To: support@blocknews.net
From: Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch>
Subject: Re: cpu-x
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
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>
	<66400e83$0$7173$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
	<v1pt96$2k7b1$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: Pan/0.146 (Hic habitat felicitas; d7a48b4
 gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/pan.git)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 12 May 2024 12:18:20 GMT
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <6640b38c$0$7175$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Trace: 1715516300 reader.netnews.com 7175 127.0.0.1:47417
Bytes: 4958

On Sun, 12 May 2024 08:05:59 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-12, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2024 14:35:35 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/9/2024 8:41 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 May 2024 08:28:23 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2024-05-08 12:56 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> CPU-Z is only freeware, CPU-X is Free Software.
>>>>>
>>>>> For an end user, there is no difference.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes there is. Your freeware comes with a long EULA with a whole lot
>>>> of conditions you have to agree to, that most people click through
>>>> without even reading,
>>> 
>>> That's their fault.
>>
>> It is, but even if you do read it, the language used isn't always
>> clear.
> 
> And most people have lives. Reading through a multi-page, fine print
> EULA written in "lawyerize" (over and over again, as they change the
> "contracts" incessantly) isn't exactly a skill I want to cultivate. Who
> takes this crap seriously? (I guess those who are enthralled with
> Windows or Mac OS — definitely not me.)

I used to have a class in university with a guy who took it seriously. At 
one point, some ISP was going around providing DSL for free. Unlike the 
rest of us, he actually read the contract to figure out what the catch 
was. I remember he was from Washington, D.C.. 

>>>> only for it to bite them later. Like being able to run hidden
>>>> telemetry on your system and harvest your data for their own
>>>> purposes.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If it's in the license it's not hidden.
>>> 
>>> If you agree to it, it's not "spying" (like that worm shitv believes).
> 
> So you buy software thinking "this is supposed to solve a problem," and
> then you're supposed to wade through pages of BS before you use the
> crap? Thanks but no thanks.

You're hitting the nail on the head there. If software is going to be 
sold, that contract needs to be made available before the sale is made. 
Otherwise, you've already paid for a program whose terms you could never 
have agreed to.

< snip >

>> The GPL license was written in such a way that it basically protects
>> the user, but not the developer. Wretched Stallman, at the very least,
>> gave that impression in his book. It is technically possible to keep
>> ownership of the software and make a profit with it, but it is rather
>> difficult the moment you slap the GPL on the code.
> 
> So, you should be able to grab all the goodies you want from other
> developers while hoarding your own work? That sounds fair. No one forces
> a GPL license on anyone. But if you benefit from the open source, you
> should pass it on. If you want to create your own application from
> scratch, EULA the hell out of it.
> 
> As for EULAs on commercial software — only companies and corporations
> take this crap seriously. (Well, maybe there are some needle-nosed dinks
> who care about it. I'm not one of them.)

The agreements are seemingly made in such a way that the corporations 
behind them can, whenever they want, come after us whenever they want. 
It's unlikely that they will, and that's why most people don't bother to 
read them, but the power to do so is still in their hands. That 
understanding is one which should push people to use free software 
instead, but I think that most people won't bother unless a corporation 
does, indeed, eventually come after them.

I recall one woman refusing to use proprietary software because her 
financial information had repeatedly been stolen. The loss came as a 
result of bugs in proprietary software and malware, and she swore that she 
would never allow herself to be a slave of such easily-compromised 
software again. I know that she has a blog, but I don't remember what it 
was.