Posted on 10/09/2006 7:47:29 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
Excerpt:
At the moment, I'm ticked off because the Debian community's recent hissy-fit over the Mozilla Corp.'s trademarked Firefox logo has led them, and others, to forking the Firefox code to avoid the use of the logo.
Gnutella, part of the Free Software Foundation's GNU Project, is creating "the 'GNU/Linux' version of same, to be dubbed 'IceWeasel.'" This may, or may not, become the logo-free version of Firefox that Debian will ship in its next distribution.
Regardless of how this turns out, the Firefox "bug" has been removed from Debian.
What are these people thinking!
It will mean more work for programmers. It will mean more work for Firefox, or should I say IceWeasel, extension developers. It will be what all forks are: a major pain for both users and developers.
(Excerpt) Read more at desktoplinux.com ...
They are. Libertarian is absolutely about property rights, and some of the biggest beefs libertarians have with our government is the extent to which it infringes on those rights.
I do have strong libertarian (little "l") leanings, which is one reason why I respect the rights of copyright holders to release their software under the license of their choice. Of course, that sometimes conflicts with other rights, such as freedom of speech in the case of some proprietary licenses (such as some from Microsoft), so in those cases I will complain. It's not some fuzzy "The leftists are coming, the leftists are coming," but an actual restriction on freedom of speech in order to control what's known about their software.
Of course I know you've been avoiding that latter issue, since you don't want to be seen condemning Microsoft for their unethical acts.
Thanks, my goal is to bring the light of truth to these discussions, not distract from it. I usually just stick to the word "leftist" since even these posters that use this radical Stallman's software can't deny he's a leftist, since he's an admitted greenie.
I will personally never purchase software with a clause that requires approval from the author before publishing benchmarks or reviews. I could theoretically get sued just for posting that my install of SQL Server 2005 is running a standard benchmark script very slowly.
In SQLXML 4.0 I can't even do workarounds if I find out that the software has some technical limitations. That's just sad, and will also prevent me from buying it.
You are used to free software licenses that don't restrict your use, so I understand your statement. But it gets scary when you start using proprietary enterprise apps.
No! "It's the copyleftists are coming, the copyleftists are coming!"
You support abortion or oppose it? Please state WHAT YOU THINK the libertarian position is on abortion.
Or just ask me and I'll tell you what it really is, or isn't.
Not to take this on a tangent, but as another FReeper mentioned once, there is a very good libertarian case against abortion. There is no libertarian case that I know of for preventing people from taking drugs, since that is a nanny-state function.
I'll be happy to condemn Microsoft where appropriate, and they have certainly paid a heavy price in various courts for their misdeeds. But you always want to use them to distract from the discussion at hand, and protect your favorite leftists like Stallman on threads like this that have nothing to do with Microsoft to begin with.
Hey...Langa recommended Bart PE in that article, and the Bart PE site contains the information that I posted.
Obviously, it's some hacker site that recommends violating the Windows EULA, and you support it by making a link here.
More endless lies from you. I was simply showing as usual ziggy didn't know what he was talking about, and, if you are only installed to the thumb drive or have multiple copies of Windows, there is no licensing issue. Go back to your eternal burning, man of fire and death.
I know, I guess at I'm guilty of supporting a forks myself... PcLinuxOS(Mandriva) AND SimplyMEPIS(Ubuntu/Debian)... although i think those forks have turned out better then the originals.
Funny, wonder why when I just searched Yahoo for "Libertarian property rights" this was the second thing that came up, from libertariannation.org?
No mention from you of installing to the thumb drive exclusively, no mention of multiple copies of Windows.
Why can't you just be straight up with us?
Obviously because licensing is not what he questioned, he questioned whether it could be done at all, which I answered. Claims that I linked hacker sites, or advocated stealing software, were just more of your endless lies since those are some of the exact things I speak out against and which make you the man of fire and death very uncomfortable.
There are millions of websites out there that purport to be things that they clearly are not. The site you found, is among them.
Ahh...I see. So, it's okay to recommend that people do things that very well might be breaking the law, but forget to mention the illegality because you weren't "questioned" about it. No responsibility on your part for turning people on to illegal activities.
You know, there are lots of things possible that aren't legal. Do you advocate anything else in this convoluted manner? I'd be interested in knowing.
Hey, I'm just going by what I've learned--keep in mind that I'm a PoliSci major...8^)
From what I've studied, libertarianism is something that eventually connects the left and the right--making the continuum more of a full circle.
Yes, few libertarians believe in big government, etc. But it's their views on other issues that define left vs. right libertarians.
Right libertarians are more likely to be reactionary; left libertarians are more likely to favor anarchy and stand traditionally left on the classic political spectrum--left of the center, but far to the right of Socialists, Communists, and radical anarchists.
That's the difference.
I've been running SLED 10--so far, I haven't had to use any of the enterprise-level items that set it apart from openSuse.
But yeah, I'm a home user when it comes to Linux. I don't have to maintain servers, workstations, or run heavy-duty corporate items...yet 8^)
You point to open source licenses as "evil" in vague "they're stealing our stuff" terms, I point out how proprietary licenses are more evil in concrete "They take our rights" terms.
For all you denigrate it, open source doesn't have the problem of taking the rights of users. Your beloved proprietary software does. So go ahead, defend Microsoft on this.
Not so fast. Ready my post #75, and show me where in the Windows XP Pro EULA that a user is allowed to install it on a USB drive. Remember, proprietary licenses are about restriction -- you are allowed to do nothing but what they say you can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.