Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: cpu-x
Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 18:07:49 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <v1r0hk$2s5uh$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>
 <66400e83$0$7173$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
 <v1pt96$2k7b1$1@dont-email.me>
 <6640b38c$0$7175$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 20:07:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b115a84c902a1dca9dcaa7b42022628c";
	logging-data="3020753"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192yjwrcNnDnq6yWP7yWCrC"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:a4z8quNmdtQiY47Y6e++om4ZNtY=
Bytes: 7120

On 2024-05-12, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> 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.

Yep. That's why I don't take it seriously. It's all skewed against the 
customer. A contract is supposed to be an agreement between two parties, but 
these corporate wonks change the contract constantly, and it's always "take 
it or leave it." In other words you buy the software, plan to use it for 
several years and they pull the rug out from under your feet by demanding 
you agree to a new contract (not the one that came with the software in the 
first place). I think I use about two or three proprietary applications 
(maybe more, but I can't come up with more right now). One of those 
applications is Fade In. Basically one man. I've mentioned a couple times to 
him that such and such tweak would be nice — within a couple weeks there's a 
new version with that tweak implemented. The license agreement is basically, 
don't give it to anyone else — you can use it on your own computers (as many 
as you want) and they can be any combination of Linux, Windows or Mac OS. 
Updates are always free.

The other proprietary software (that I can think of now) is office suite 
that comes with TextMaker. They provide five licenses that can be divided 
between any combination of Linux, Windows or Mac OS machines. They're a 
German outfit, and seem to be well liked. But I've never read the fine print 
in their EULA. Maybe they have the "right" to take one of my kidneys with two 
hours notice, who knows?

I would imagine that a lot of these EULAs could be challenged in court if 
anyone cared enough to do it.

> 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.

I believe that. My wife's credit card has been compromised five or six 
times. She uses Windows and Windows applications.

-- 
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an 
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality." 
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..."     — St. Augustine