Re: cpu-x

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