Re: cpu-x

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.