Re:Microsoft's Software Is Malware
by ilyt on Tuesday March 28, 2023 @05:53PM
(#35348487)
> "Jails are systems that impose censorship on application programs." Not sure if I'm interpreting this next quote from the GNU.org site (https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html) correctly, but it seems like this is exactly their definition of a "Free GNU/Linux distribution" is meant to do: "They will reject nonfree applications, nonfree programming platforms, nonfree drivers, nonfree firmware "blobs," nonfree games, and any other nonfree software, as well as nonfree manuals or documentation."
It's not; first (as referred in article) is preventing user from using the machine as they see fit.
Second one is not accepting software into distribution that tries to take user's freedom to modify it; they don't stop you installing non-free software in free distribution, they are just not shipping the non-free software. It's a stance on not promoting (by including and making installing trivial) the non-free software but you are still free to install on your own.
Going by tired
> "They will reject" seems an awful like "won't run on my distribution", and not because it's not compatible because of runtime or kernel differences, but because of its 'being nonfree'.
Nope, it explicitly means "will not distribute, with their distribution, for free". Software actively stopping you from running other software would actually be nonfree, as the whole deal with OSS is "do with sofware what you want" and GNU deal being "and pass same priviledge forward"
It's not; first (as referred in article) is preventing user from using the machine as they see fit.
Second one is not accepting software into distribution that tries to take user's freedom to modify it; they don't stop you installing non-free software in free distribution, they are just not shipping the non-free software. It's a stance on not promoting (by including and making installing trivial) the non-free software but you are still free to install on your own.
Going by tired
> "They will reject" seems an awful like "won't run on my distribution", and not because it's not compatible because of runtime or kernel differences, but because of its 'being nonfree'.
Nope, it explicitly means "will not distribute, with their distribution, for free". Software actively stopping you from running other software would actually be nonfree, as the whole deal with OSS is "do with sofware what you want" and GNU deal being "and pass same priviledge forward"