Sujet : Re: cpu-x
De : candycanearter07 (at) *nospam* candycanearter07.nomail.afraid (candycanearter07)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.advocacyDate : 14. May 2024, 03:50:07
Autres entêtes
Organisation : the-candyden-of-code
Message-ID : <v1ug0f$3tlkd$8@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
DFS <
nospam@dfs.com> wrote at 18:35 this Saturday (GMT):
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.
>
>
>
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).
When have you read a license?
Free Software doesn’t try to con you into things you didn’t know you were
agreeing to.
>
What, you never read that stupid, impenetrable, restrictive GuhNoo GPL 3
(under which CPU-X is released)?
>
It's twice as long and MUCH more restrictive than the CPU-Z license.
>
It has a SHITLOAD of "you must" or "you may/may not" or other
conditional clauses restricting your freedom to use the software, far
far far more than the CPU-Z license, and far more than most proprietary
licenses I've read.
-- user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
cpu-x
Re: cpu-x