moon_crush

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

moon_crush,

I, too, tried to give this a fair read. But, there is nothing in this article except opinionated media bashing and quite stretching “conclusions”.

Move along, trash.

moon_crush,

No, just no. I have already blocked dozens of meme communities, don’t spread that garbage here too.

moon_crush,

I do appreciate the effort to contain memes. But, quite frankly, I avoid memes like the plague because 9 out of 10 are not funny or insightful — most just regurgitate the same tired tropes and worn out jokes. I am disappointed to find them here.

moon_crush,

I did. And, again at your request. And, what’s your point?

There are plenty of communities to share memes here, not sure why a “tech news” one needs to support this kind of idiocy.

moon_crush,

Please. Climate change has been a well-lnown phenomena for a very long time. Scientists in the 19th century were warning that rising CO2 from human-caused emissions could harm the climate.

…wikipedia.org/…/History_of_climate_change_scienc…

moon_crush,

Except that states have no fucking business telling someone what they can do with their body. “State’s rights” my ass! This is a “personal right”that was stolen.

moon_crush,
moon_crush,

Best TL;DR yet!

A finer detail is that Swift was contractually prohibited from new recordings for two years after original contract ended — that time has now passed.

moon_crush,

I can’t believe how many people fundamentally misunderstand the spirit behind the GPL.

It helps to consider “the software” as a single snapshot in time, with the GPL’s intention that the consumer may make their own fixes, rebuild, and redistribute. Check.

Remember: “Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.” Selling open source software has always been explicitly allowed, as long as you make the source available to those who receive it. Check.

What the GPL does NOT provide is guaranteed access to maintenance and future versions of said software. Again, it applies to a snapshot, as delivered.

In a nutshell, the customer receives open source everything they FOR A PARTICULAR VERSION.

I see no problem — either in spirit or letter — in Redhat’s approach here.

moon_crush,

We can agree to disagree. “The Software” was delivered, source included. And you as end consumer are free to redistribute and maintain as you wish.

However, I cannot see any contract law judgement that would force continuation of a subscription model on the vendor (in perpetuity!) if they do not wish to remain under contract.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • KamenRider
  • Ask_kbincafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • KbinCafe
  • Socialism
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • All magazines