Re: cpu-x

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.)
 

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 often agree to it because it is often worded in such a way that it
doesn't sound so bad. I'll be honest though: the telemetry doesn't bother
me as much as the knowledge that the corporation supports causes that I
strongly disagree with. On the other hand, most companies behind Linux do
too.

Lawyers have to make their money somehow. Being deceptive is the name of
their game.

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.

>
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.)

--
[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