Show Navigation
Notices by Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp) (lxo@gnusocial.net), page 30
-
> the authorities seem to put everyone in the same boat,
that, too, is propaganda, that they resort to to enable and reinforce the genocide
-
entendi o que você escreveu, mas repetir e se referir a outros dizendo a mesma bobagem não a torna correta. não precisa de licença (permissão) pra mencionar produto de marca alheia, mesmo em contexto comercial, basta reconhecer o titular.
agora, será que você ou suas fontes duvidosas conseguem explicar como é que pode botar a marca registrada Linux em produtos que não são nem originados nem endossados pelo titular da marca? (dica: é justamente esse tipo de fraude de mercado que a lei de marcas pretende regular)
-
olha o tamanho do absurdo do argumento: Linux é uma marca registrada, portanto tem que pedir permissão pra dizer que uma combinação contendo Linux é GNU/Linux, mas não pra dizer que a mesma combinação é Linux? doh. poupe-me.
anunciar um carro marca X com pneus marca Y e sistema de som marca Z é perfeitamente permitido, mencionando as marcas, e não precisa pedir permissão dos titulares, desde que os componentes sejam de fato dos titulares das marcas correspondentes.
o que de fato não pode é colocar uma marca num produto que não tem aquela origem ou endosso. por exemplo, colocar a marca Linux numa coleção de software que contém software além do núcleo Linux poderia dar problema, se não fosse de interesse dos titulares da marca fazer todo o software GNU e de terceiros se passar (falsamente) por Linux.
-
yeah, there are lots of licenses, and nearly every one of them that qualifies as OSS also qualifies as FS, and vice-versa. the sets of licenses are nearly equivalent. that was my point. your earlier post suggested it wasn't so, and that's a very common misconception. I'm still not sure whether you hold that misconception, or it was just miscommunication.
-
there's a common misconception that open source, free software and FOSS, when referring to software (rather than to political stances), denote significantly different sets of software. there are rare exceptions that can be counted in one hand's fingers, but I suspect those are not the distinction you're making.
could you please point out what you mean by "not the same", as in, what difference you're getting at, so that it doesn't reinforce the misconceptions? (a common misconception is that only copyleft licensing, or only strong copyleft licensing, qualifies as free software, while lax permissive licenses don't; that's a misrepresentation that has been fed by propaganda)
-
precisa estudar um pouco mais sobre marcas
uso da marca para se referir ao produto independe de autorização
se você quiser publicar que está usando uma roupa de uma determinada marca, isso é um fato e você é livre para divulgá-lo independente de qualquer autorização
o que exigiria autorização seria para oferecer um produto dando a entender que a marca sobre ele se aplica. não é o caso.
GNU é o sistema operacional GNU, Linux é o núcleo Linux, GNU/Linux ou GNU+Linux é a combinação dos dois, afirmar essa combinação não é diferente de dizer que usa camisa de uma determinada marca com calça de outra determinada marca.
agora, sobre nunca chegarem a uma conclusão aceitável, é porque não é uma questão jurídica, é uma questão de alinhamento político. há os que seguem a linha simpática à supressão da liberdade, à aceitação de blobs privativos de liberadade, e que portanto se identificam com Linux, e há os que seguem a linha de lutar por liberdade para todos, que portanto se identificam com o GNU. tem um lado que tenta suprimir o outro, e tem o outro que precisa disputar espaço para evitar essa supressão. se você apóia a liberdade, pode ajudar nessa luta dando nome aos bois. ou, no caso, ao GNU ;-)
-
the V is for Veterinary
-
as in, it is possible for one to print a document, read it on paper (or on some printer-like PDF rendered), generate a digital signature of it, and send it out, just to find out that the on-screen rendering contains text that didn't appear on paper? that's scary
-
it's not the same. the name Libreboot didn't used to be misleading. now it's a lie.
-
electronic voting is impossible to make voter-verifiable and -trustable by the average voter. most people don't have the required knowledge of computing and maths to as much as reason about the security of the entire process.
that's what makes paper-based voting safer for democracy. parties can have regular people auditing the voting and the counting, rather than computing and cryptography specialists auditing code that might not even be running on the actual machines.
that makes a fundamental difference in how believable the results are
-
and the misleading consequence is that Libreboot isn't
-
it has improved, but I also still hear people mention delayed deliveries every now and then. I suspect it may have more to do with too-tight firewalls on networks hostile to P2P, and perhaps with users experiencing difficulties to contact each other when they happen to both be behind the same CGNAT ,or never online at the same time, than any unreliability of the protocol in itself. but the fact that Jami insists on only delivering messages to the final destinations, instead of using third parties as proxies, may make these circumstances seem like flaws
-
foi um dos dias mais tristes e mais felizes da minha vida. fiquei arrasado com o acidente, mas nesse mesmo dia uma amiga minha comemorou seu aniversário convidando alguns amigos para uma festinha em sua casa. foi o dia em que me dei conta de que estava apaixonado por ela. ainda demorou umas semanas para começarmos um romance, mas rendeu: estamos juntos na parceria da vida há quase 30 anos
-
I always recommend GNU Jami.
as for reasons, it respects our freedom and privacy, it runs on most operating systems for desktops and mobiles, and it doesn't depend on any proprietary infrastructure that could exploit us, censor us, or otherwise snoop on us and be enshittified? thanks but no thanks, I don't wish to get Zuck (or anyone else) involved in our private conversations. as says a friend of mine, why should I go along with your platform of (poor) choice, that would screw us both, but you can't go alone with my platform of choice, that would keep us from being controlled and screwed with. besides, your platform of choice would require me to carry a tracking device.
that's how I generally respond
-
I miss the days when the web was for sharing rather than for consuming and controlling.
I miss the days when it was common sense to avoid running code downloaded from strangers. now we have javascrippled websites that won't work unless you betray yourself and common sense
I miss the days when we could automate mechanical/boring web tasks, when remote bots would not refuse to share information with our bots just because we're using bots. now they insist in only talking to humans, turning us into their servants instead of serving us
-
no free software distro can do that. users control free software.
maybe what you're trying to say is that you don't like distros that don't offer convenience for you to shoot yourself in the feet. that presumed feeling of yours sounds plausible to me, it fits with what you've written. but it's a matter of convenience, not of freedom.
-
Wheee, tonight I'm flying out to the US to speak about software enshittification and how to fight it at LibrePlanet @fsf
https://libreplanet.org/2024/speakers#6621
https://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/#Unshittify
-
when you celebrate you can decide whether or not to install a certain blob that claims to fix a bug, and that this is some freedom, you appear to be missing that the supplier is denying you the freedom you should also have to see what other changes the blob would bring onto your computer, and to decide which of them you want and which of them you don't, and to improve on them, and to help others. you're celebrating the crumbs thrown at you so that you'll leave the bigger piece of the pie to those who control you.
trusting that the blob suppliers have your best interest in mind when they push updates, instead of aiming to expand their power and profits through the control over you that you grant them, is naïve at best
-
> the goal of software freedom
stop right there, there's a misconception
software freedom is the goal
free software is the means to that goal
but if it takes accepting nonfree software to run free software, that's not achieving the goal, that's giving up software freedom, because that nonfree software takes your freedom away
from the perspective of someone else who runs both that nonfree software and some other piece of nonfree software, replacing one of them with free software is a step towards software freedom, but does not achieve the goal of software freedom
-
> eu queria ser uma ameba
para em seu límpido aquário fagocitar?
ou será que fica melhor com pútrido em vez de límpido?
Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp)
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the