mariusafa @ mariusafa @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

0

Comments

479

Joined

2 yr. ago

Fuck I meant successor

The bad language that all successor languages copied?

Edit: spell.

Nice, used to be like this. Europe with European telecom. products, Nokia, Ericsson, etc.

That's the same I'm saying. What you quoted just says that you can charge for distributing free software but you cannot force other holders of the software to distribute it asking for a charge.

You as a distributor can charge for what you distribute, that's it. And it has been done with a lot of free software, like with Linux. That's why basically Linus changed his License from explicitly free in money to only free as in freedom.

The thing is that free software allows to have a paywall if the distributor wants it. Which has a lot of sense. But does not allow to enforce it to other distributors.

Richard Stallman distributed GNU tools by a price. HIS distribution of GNU tools. At the same time you can also get the GNU tools from idk Debian mirrors (for free).

Free software isn't free as in money. That's the whole point. The adoption of Open Source by the "cool" companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.) has tainted the original meaning of free software.

Sha1 hash do you mean? Sha1 is just a hash algorithm.

If webpages are storing plain password and not the hash, we should be worried

-sic

If the source code is free software you are free to share it if you have a copy of it.

I did that my self (fixed the chip), the cables and everything shiped with it are trash.

You can change for software distribution (binaries).Directly from gpl site...:

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney)

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my distribution site? (#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee)

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. Under GPLv2, if you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary. If the binaries being distributed are licensed under the GPLv3, then you must offer equivalent access to the source code in the same way through the same place at no further charge.

I hate nintendo. I know a lot of ppl that plays the game with their our bought copies all legal on pc just because it RUNS BETTER. Nintendo....

If you want to install this please DO NOT USE THE CH341A programmer. That fucking shit has the internal control signals and data signals at 5V and the bios chips usually work at 3.3V or lower.

The CH341A is defective by design and the Chinese manufacturers don't care. There are fixes online, but still the chip works badly.

If you want to install libreboot, please use any other option given at Libreboot docs. I lost too many hours because of the fucking Chinese ch341a. Which I solved quickly with a pi pico board.

In any case do not use this guy's video as an example. The instructions of the video ARE WRONG and you may fry your bios. Don't be fooled by this youtuber confidence. Follow the docs.

I've installed it on a x220.

It's free software. You can charge money for distribution of free software but if the user does then he has the right to have acces to the source code forever no restrictions. And that user is free to distribute copies of the software as he wishes.

Pretty much sums up every thing

Mewal gear

Hahahahhahahha

You stopped liking the tomcat?!!!!

Death stranding backpack lvl.2

I'm totally okay with paying for prebuilt images of free software. It's what is meant.

Russia SAM's are good. It's the only thing where they (can) put money. Aircraft designs are solid but they don't have "gadgets" to equip them and be competent at modern air combat.

SAMs can be good only by the dissuasive factor. Which is the point of them.

Although not sure how many operative new SAMs Russia has or can move to the front in operative state. The USSR had great technology and even sometimes was better than US tech, but they lack the means to create a reliable industry production of it. So most of the stuff stays as a few demo products but never gets to the front in full scale.