And somewhere down the road the kids would have to be retrained to use standard PC's.
I smell contradiction.
The point of OLPC is to try to get the cheapest laptop available for those without anything, and I credit them for really starting the push in the mindset of OEMs, perhaps even more than Asus did, for focusing on making cheap laptops. OLPC was seen as a danger to the market which is why you're on here reading this article about the Classmate in the first place. At the very least, you should agree that credit is due to them for helping bump the cheap laptop market, even if the whole thing was basically effectively destroyed by corporations, or at least delayed so they all had time to come up with their own offerings.
If you have found ways to make things "high performance", you should certainly share that with the kernel devs and others who are involved with the software you've changed. All the rest of us would like a faster system too. ^^
Of course, we'd install a DE if we were using it as our desktops, which would slow things down again a bit I'm sure, but if there are any rudimentary improvements those should definitely be shared with everyone upstream.
That was the biggest total miss of my point I've ever seen. All software should be easily accessible so anyone and everyone can use it. If you're a developer and you don't want anyone using your software though, that's fine, few will then I'm sure.
Oh, and I'm forgetting the additional 4% who don't care to compile even though they know how, who'd rather do better things with their time instead of redundant CPU work and would much rather just download/install/run quickly. It's the software developers who should compile it once for everyone. Anyone downloading and compiling the source should only be doing so if they want to look at the code, but no one should ever be forced to do that just so they can run a fucking program, so wake up and smell reality and think about users other than yourself.
Too bad they don't support some standardization with packages, so that any normal user can easily download and install the new software. That would require them helping out the Burgdorf Packaging API perhaps, or some other system which worked to standardize packages. We're tired of being tied up, waiting for our distro of choice to compile it for us, we want cross-distro binary packages. kthnx.
And that's one of the biggest problems right now with Linux is packaging, and the LSB is aware of it, and they're trying to do something about it. Whether this is the best solution, I don't know, but any solution right now is better than nothing. I'm just appalled that ODF has such a march behind it, yet having at least one intelligent (upgradeable, removable, integrated with package manager) package format work across distros (all or most all existing managers made compatible with the format) gets completely neglected.
It's ironic, because ultimately access to software so you can get done want you want to get done is the basis for the open source movement. Everyone gets all up in arms about "proprietary software", yet no one cares about proprietary distros and those issues with software lock-in. Why should I have to upgrade or change my LINUX OS just so I can use some LINUX software? Of course no one should. Or changing to a newer distro version just to have access to some drivers? That's total crap. The kernel was designed to have modules to allow it to be more modular, but obviously it's not modular enough yet, and/or because of the packaging mess, you just don't see driver packages shared out and such like you should.
Linux won't be as successful until users start being able to have easier and more flexible access to software they want, so I wish the LSB luck in bringing order to that chaos since no other groups have really stepped up to address interoperability issues like they have that I know of besides the Freedesktop.org group.
XVid is an open source implementation of the codec, but the codec itself is patented supposedly as Xvid is a derivative of DivX, which is in turn a derivative of MPEG. See this for more info.
At least, as far as I understand it, "codec" refers to the format, so while the software to encode or decode the codec format may be open source, the format still carries patents. Software patents are particularly horrid. That's why you should support encoding and decoding in completely unfettered and uncontrolled formats, unless you think using these "restricted" formats is a better way of saying fuck you, but perpetuating them is why content creators continue to produce them, and they're the ones who get targeted by the patent trolls.
Agreed for the most part, but I think 95% of all patents are junk and should be thrown out, and definitely agree with pushing back the time period and adding those rules, at the very least. What you've been seeing has largely been a lot of companies yelling that they want to make more money, so the government should help them in doing so. I can't really think of any situation which would warrant any aid for a corporation, even natural disasters can be compensated for from surrounding areas/companies. It just seems to me that there's a widespread attitude here that if there's any way for the government to enforce artificial barriers to help create or keep a market in place to "save businesses", they'll try to of course get the government to pass those laws protecting them. You see this happening with Hollywood and the music industry with ridiculous legislation with closing analog holes like this whole forced move over to digital for no apparent reason (should the government ALLOW market forces to operate, not force them to get rid of analog for no reason??), and pressure to "regulate" the internet so they can make more money in various ways. You don't ban autos just because they threaten the horse and carriage business. Governments should definitely be working for their citizens and not for businesses to squeeze more money from them. Any and all regulation should be to help consumers lead cheaper, better lives. That is the goal, so anything less should be illegal.
Exactly, or better yet, use those decoders to transcode content into open ones and distribute them in that format. Distribute MP3 collections in OGG, and convert video to, well, sadly the best unfettered video codec right now that you can actually use seems to be Theora, because Dirac is still being implemented into players and such, and Snow is still in development last I heard. I think the only encoder available for Dirac is something that's pretty difficult to use.
RMS just doesn't get it. Sometimes you have to fulfill immediate needs with proprietary software. While everyone wishes they could use OSS instead, or even pay for OSS instead of something proprietary, that business model isn't common enough yet, and the only quick solution can be to plop down some cash on something proprietary until the situation improves. To those completely stoned into thinking that MP3 is the best codec of all time even though it's clearly surpassed by Ogg Vorbis, this gives them the chance to continue to pay for the use of MP3. It expands the market, it allows the market to grow where previously it wouldn't have grown as quickly. There will still be voices which want open codecs and don't want to pay for MP3, so you're not hurting anything by allowing some users to have access to this proprietary controlled crap. Allowing access expands the Linux base, so it's good for all Linux users period, but it never will take away that want for an unrestricted system for those users who care about that (which everyone should to some degree, always).
For instance, if Steam and all it's games were finally ported over to Linux, while some idiots would be whining about it, it would be a very very good thing, probably even better if Google took the reigns but that's another topic. Linux would finally be able to meet the needs of today's gamers, and this would hurdle Linux sales forward and put it in the limelight. The user base will accelerate much faster, possibly even rupture if there was some sort of damns breaking with OEMs and retailers. Would that destroy Linux? Would everyone stop caring about software freedom? Would the "open movement" die? Fuck no, it would expand as more users got more access to more freedom as they switch to an OS which is largely free and will only continue to become more free as competition and pressure ensures that.
No, capitalism itself is broken because laze faire economics doesn't work. Monopolies form and competition goes out the window. It seems that only with some government regulation can competition actually occur. Here in the U.S., every instance of deregulation has shown to be ineffective and to result in a lack of competition and worse prices for consumers. Here, monopolies wait around like sharks until something is deregulated and thrown overboard. You're right though that in the case of patents, the government is helping monopolies and providing less competition for them.
Right, now OpenGL will probably see more improvements, I hope OGL 3.1 will add the wanted and missing features.
However, with articles floating about talking about the end of GPUs and graphics APIs as we know it, I wonder if OGL or DX actually have futures any way. For the time being they do at least.
Lol, what the crap, no one wants extra licenses and that includes stupid EULAs which place extra restrictions on users and doesn't make it free software, I'll stick with the GPL and other free licenses and you can do whatever you want, k thanx.
Of course I meant more programs period, both good and bad. More Linux use = more programs = more for you to choose from, both command line and GUI. Linux adoption helps everyone. More hardware will work out of the box, software will be easier to install, there will be more programs with more options and features available, and they will all be easier to use because everything will undergo more testing leading to more reliability, not to mention more security because a lot more attack attempts will have been made against Linux software. You'll simply have more access and easier access as a whole to more and betterLinux software than you do now, there's nothing there to hate unless you've built up your self-esteem around being one of the few users of a particular OS. In that case there are still several out there to choose from, several of which are completely incompatible with most all programs which exist right now. I recommend Amiga as it's a pretty cool OS.;) But yeah, good luck getting much use out of it, but if your needs are few then it may be just good enough for you.
I completely agree with most of that at least, if you use intelligent programming and make things modular then any feature you want should be easily installable. Nautilus has plugins, but for many other things that modularity doesn't exist. Systems which are designed from the ground up to make it easy to plug in new features are much more usable and powerful systems. While I completely agree that a cleaner desktop is one that at least has the more advanced features tucked away a little perhaps, I definitely don't want those features to be completely inaccessible, that's just stupid. By inaccessible I mean that if they want to completely leave certain things out by leaving out certain plugins to reduce the size or whatnot that's fine, but allow users to easily be able to install and access those features if they want them. No reason not to, whatsoever, but perhaps Gnome just wasn't designed to be modular like that, which sucks.
Completely agree with that aspect of the parent's post. While it is good for aesthetics sometimes to at least tuck less-used features away, you definitely should not remove the ability entirely to access those features/ideas. If Gnome was properly modular so that users could easily create plugins to do whatever they wanted basically, this would not be an issue.
Linux severely needs a heaping spoon full of modularity and APIs/standards in more areas, and systems which are not modular or built intelligently with these concepts in mind should be abandoned or made to be modular so that they can be usable and much more beneficial to everyone. I hate the fact that Gnome and KDE is even separate at all, because I believe both systems should be capable of anything if they were correctly programmed, then it would merely be what pieces were included by default or what settings were set by default that would make the difference between a power user's desktop and a minimalist's.
Oh OK, I figured since it was open source they would have been mostly ported by now. ^^ Well then, I guess the Windows libraries/API is possibly the most cross-platform solution right now for some companies. Several games now target Windows/Wine including Eve, Spore, and others. (Funny that the Mac version of Spore is just the Windows version wrapped in Wine/Cider.)
EULAs, along with the "normal" licenses, should not be forced in the user's face, especially each time they want to load a program, with an annoying pop-up. Basically no one reads them or cares, and if they do they should be allowed to read them in the Help menu or whatnot, but don't pretend that you're making the user read them by shoving them into their faces when you know they'll just click OK, it's immature and anal. I'll crack the program or install something else to avoid being plagued by pop-ups, so this is really a shitty move on Mozilla's behalf. If I can't circumvent something like that I'll use the re-branded version.
Right, and the kickback against all this is really about pop-ups and the lack-there-of in most open source software. Just because something is open source doesn't mean it's free of annoying stuff like this, but it's what most Linux users are used to. Going to a browser that asks me each time to agree to some BS when I run it? Hell, I'd install a version that didn't force me to do that if it was up to me, so I think it's very lame on Mozilla's part to try to force this on users. Once at install time I could live with though but EULAs are just lame, period. Put the legal crap tucked away someplace so I can read it if I choose to do so, but don't pretend that you're forcing me to read it when you know I won't.
You need to know that software title A is software title A, I agree. If you modify something, and it's not an official modification, that difference should be noted, otherwise the original developers could be trying to help you fix a bug that wasn't their fault to begin with. So, yeah, it's just common courtesy and I don't think many would dispute that. If you fork a program you rename it, simple, everyone knows that. However, the EULA is a different matter, that IS the subject here, the branding is the side-effect, it's the stake that causes this issue to arise. By removing the brand, you can avoid the EULA. So, would you like to use Firefox if it pops up each time you open it with a stupid EULA, or would you not mind using the exact same browser basically only re-branded so that you don't have to? The point is, it's up to you, so I really hope that Mozilla would reverse this whole decision and stop being anal about EULAs, they're retarded and no one reads them and they get in the way. I'd be OK with clicking OK once perhaps on installation though, but not every time loading it up. If it was really open though, any licenses should be in the program files someplace and shouldn't be "in the way", like with all GPLed software apparently, and I prefer it that way.
Pop-ups are annoying and also you shouldn't have to deal with them with open source software like Firefox. I think that's the main subject here.
You could also make it more viral, so when someone tries to access your Samba share or print server, they'd get a nasty EULA pop-up, and when you tried to view a file you copied from a Samba share, it'd also request that you acknowledge that the file may be all bad because it came from the share, and then if you share that with others it would make them agree to it too!
"This file came from computer A which came from a computer which came from a program which came from a computer.........which is now on your computer B. We cannot be held responsible, it was their fault not ours, do you agree to hold everyone between point A and B responsible and not us?"
Thank you! I think you answered my question I had about EULAs. So the difference here then is that the Mozilla license that Firefox uses allows EULAs to be presented, or at least leaves it open as for if they are allowed or not, but the GPL specifically states that there is only the GPL and nothing else, you can't come along and tack on these extra licenses for users or whateverthecrap you want to, you're only stuck with that SINGLE license and that's it? I'm kind of interested in possible loopholes in the Mozilla license then because if their license leaves the door open to additional licenses, couldn't those licenses then impose on extra restrictions that weren't included in the "normal" one? Perhaps I should just view it as a change in the license for the program though, and everyone should just look at Mozilla as having officially changed their license in a sense. In that case, Iceweasel, if it has a less restrictive license essentially, and because clicking OK to a EULA every time I wanted to load Firefox would be freaking annoying, I might have to switch. =/
Not to mention that the reality is it's just legal BS, because you can leave a browser running and someone else can get on, etc etc, I mean I have Firefox running 24/7 myself. I think if you want to read and understand the legal blatherings about the software you use, you should be able to do so, but not forced into it. No one reads it, no one cares, you should read it before using the software if you want to. That's the way things should be, any way, but the sad reality is that certain countries happen to be sue-crazy which is the reason for constant EULA pop-ups in the first place. I blame lawyers and the legal system.
Slashdot Mirror
My kids use whatever OS is put in front of them.
And somewhere down the road the kids would have to be retrained to use standard PC's.
I smell contradiction.
The point of OLPC is to try to get the cheapest laptop available for those without anything, and I credit them for really starting the push in the mindset of OEMs, perhaps even more than Asus did, for focusing on making cheap laptops. OLPC was seen as a danger to the market which is why you're on here reading this article about the Classmate in the first place. At the very least, you should agree that credit is due to them for helping bump the cheap laptop market, even if the whole thing was basically effectively destroyed by corporations, or at least delayed so they all had time to come up with their own offerings.
If you have found ways to make things "high performance", you should certainly share that with the kernel devs and others who are involved with the software you've changed. All the rest of us would like a faster system too. ^^
Of course, we'd install a DE if we were using it as our desktops, which would slow things down again a bit I'm sure, but if there are any rudimentary improvements those should definitely be shared with everyone upstream.
That was the biggest total miss of my point I've ever seen. All software should be easily accessible so anyone and everyone can use it. If you're a developer and you don't want anyone using your software though, that's fine, few will then I'm sure.
Oh, and I'm forgetting the additional 4% who don't care to compile even though they know how, who'd rather do better things with their time instead of redundant CPU work and would much rather just download/install/run quickly. It's the software developers who should compile it once for everyone. Anyone downloading and compiling the source should only be doing so if they want to look at the code, but no one should ever be forced to do that just so they can run a fucking program, so wake up and smell reality and think about users other than yourself.
Bad news! Only those who know how to compile can access that software, which rules out 95% of everyone on Earth!
Too bad they don't support some standardization with packages, so that any normal user can easily download and install the new software. That would require them helping out the Burgdorf Packaging API perhaps, or some other system which worked to standardize packages. We're tired of being tied up, waiting for our distro of choice to compile it for us, we want cross-distro binary packages. kthnx.
And that's one of the biggest problems right now with Linux is packaging, and the LSB is aware of it, and they're trying to do something about it. Whether this is the best solution, I don't know, but any solution right now is better than nothing. I'm just appalled that ODF has such a march behind it, yet having at least one intelligent (upgradeable, removable, integrated with package manager) package format work across distros (all or most all existing managers made compatible with the format) gets completely neglected.
It's ironic, because ultimately access to software so you can get done want you want to get done is the basis for the open source movement. Everyone gets all up in arms about "proprietary software", yet no one cares about proprietary distros and those issues with software lock-in. Why should I have to upgrade or change my LINUX OS just so I can use some LINUX software? Of course no one should. Or changing to a newer distro version just to have access to some drivers? That's total crap. The kernel was designed to have modules to allow it to be more modular, but obviously it's not modular enough yet, and/or because of the packaging mess, you just don't see driver packages shared out and such like you should.
Linux won't be as successful until users start being able to have easier and more flexible access to software they want, so I wish the LSB luck in bringing order to that chaos since no other groups have really stepped up to address interoperability issues like they have that I know of besides the Freedesktop.org group.
XVid is an open source implementation of the codec, but the codec itself is patented supposedly as Xvid is a derivative of DivX, which is in turn a derivative of MPEG. See this for more info.
At least, as far as I understand it, "codec" refers to the format, so while the software to encode or decode the codec format may be open source, the format still carries patents. Software patents are particularly horrid. That's why you should support encoding and decoding in completely unfettered and uncontrolled formats, unless you think using these "restricted" formats is a better way of saying fuck you, but perpetuating them is why content creators continue to produce them, and they're the ones who get targeted by the patent trolls.
Agreed for the most part, but I think 95% of all patents are junk and should be thrown out, and definitely agree with pushing back the time period and adding those rules, at the very least. What you've been seeing has largely been a lot of companies yelling that they want to make more money, so the government should help them in doing so. I can't really think of any situation which would warrant any aid for a corporation, even natural disasters can be compensated for from surrounding areas/companies. It just seems to me that there's a widespread attitude here that if there's any way for the government to enforce artificial barriers to help create or keep a market in place to "save businesses", they'll try to of course get the government to pass those laws protecting them. You see this happening with Hollywood and the music industry with ridiculous legislation with closing analog holes like this whole forced move over to digital for no apparent reason (should the government ALLOW market forces to operate, not force them to get rid of analog for no reason??), and pressure to "regulate" the internet so they can make more money in various ways. You don't ban autos just because they threaten the horse and carriage business. Governments should definitely be working for their citizens and not for businesses to squeeze more money from them. Any and all regulation should be to help consumers lead cheaper, better lives. That is the goal, so anything less should be illegal.
Exactly, or better yet, use those decoders to transcode content into open ones and distribute them in that format. Distribute MP3 collections in OGG, and convert video to, well, sadly the best unfettered video codec right now that you can actually use seems to be Theora, because Dirac is still being implemented into players and such, and Snow is still in development last I heard. I think the only encoder available for Dirac is something that's pretty difficult to use.
RMS just doesn't get it. Sometimes you have to fulfill immediate needs with proprietary software. While everyone wishes they could use OSS instead, or even pay for OSS instead of something proprietary, that business model isn't common enough yet, and the only quick solution can be to plop down some cash on something proprietary until the situation improves. To those completely stoned into thinking that MP3 is the best codec of all time even though it's clearly surpassed by Ogg Vorbis, this gives them the chance to continue to pay for the use of MP3. It expands the market, it allows the market to grow where previously it wouldn't have grown as quickly. There will still be voices which want open codecs and don't want to pay for MP3, so you're not hurting anything by allowing some users to have access to this proprietary controlled crap. Allowing access expands the Linux base, so it's good for all Linux users period, but it never will take away that want for an unrestricted system for those users who care about that (which everyone should to some degree, always).
For instance, if Steam and all it's games were finally ported over to Linux, while some idiots would be whining about it, it would be a very very good thing, probably even better if Google took the reigns but that's another topic. Linux would finally be able to meet the needs of today's gamers, and this would hurdle Linux sales forward and put it in the limelight. The user base will accelerate much faster, possibly even rupture if there was some sort of damns breaking with OEMs and retailers. Would that destroy Linux? Would everyone stop caring about software freedom? Would the "open movement" die? Fuck no, it would expand as more users got more access to more freedom as they switch to an OS which is largely free and will only continue to become more free as competition and pressure ensures that.
No, capitalism itself is broken because laze faire economics doesn't work. Monopolies form and competition goes out the window. It seems that only with some government regulation can competition actually occur. Here in the U.S., every instance of deregulation has shown to be ineffective and to result in a lack of competition and worse prices for consumers. Here, monopolies wait around like sharks until something is deregulated and thrown overboard. You're right though that in the case of patents, the government is helping monopolies and providing less competition for them.
Right, now OpenGL will probably see more improvements, I hope OGL 3.1 will add the wanted and missing features.
However, with articles floating about talking about the end of GPUs and graphics APIs as we know it, I wonder if OGL or DX actually have futures any way. For the time being they do at least.
Lol, what the crap, no one wants extra licenses and that includes stupid EULAs which place extra restrictions on users and doesn't make it free software, I'll stick with the GPL and other free licenses and you can do whatever you want, k thanx.
Of course I meant more programs period, both good and bad. More Linux use = more programs = more for you to choose from, both command line and GUI. Linux adoption helps everyone. More hardware will work out of the box, software will be easier to install, there will be more programs with more options and features available, and they will all be easier to use because everything will undergo more testing leading to more reliability, not to mention more security because a lot more attack attempts will have been made against Linux software. You'll simply have more access and easier access as a whole to more and betterLinux software than you do now, there's nothing there to hate unless you've built up your self-esteem around being one of the few users of a particular OS. In that case there are still several out there to choose from, several of which are completely incompatible with most all programs which exist right now. I recommend Amiga as it's a pretty cool OS. ;) But yeah, good luck getting much use out of it, but if your needs are few then it may be just good enough for you.
I completely agree with most of that at least, if you use intelligent programming and make things modular then any feature you want should be easily installable. Nautilus has plugins, but for many other things that modularity doesn't exist. Systems which are designed from the ground up to make it easy to plug in new features are much more usable and powerful systems. While I completely agree that a cleaner desktop is one that at least has the more advanced features tucked away a little perhaps, I definitely don't want those features to be completely inaccessible, that's just stupid. By inaccessible I mean that if they want to completely leave certain things out by leaving out certain plugins to reduce the size or whatnot that's fine, but allow users to easily be able to install and access those features if they want them. No reason not to, whatsoever, but perhaps Gnome just wasn't designed to be modular like that, which sucks.
Completely agree with that aspect of the parent's post. While it is good for aesthetics sometimes to at least tuck less-used features away, you definitely should not remove the ability entirely to access those features/ideas. If Gnome was properly modular so that users could easily create plugins to do whatever they wanted basically, this would not be an issue.
Linux severely needs a heaping spoon full of modularity and APIs/standards in more areas, and systems which are not modular or built intelligently with these concepts in mind should be abandoned or made to be modular so that they can be usable and much more beneficial to everyone. I hate the fact that Gnome and KDE is even separate at all, because I believe both systems should be capable of anything if they were correctly programmed, then it would merely be what pieces were included by default or what settings were set by default that would make the difference between a power user's desktop and a minimalist's.
Oh OK, I figured since it was open source they would have been mostly ported by now. ^^ Well then, I guess the Windows libraries/API is possibly the most cross-platform solution right now for some companies. Several games now target Windows/Wine including Eve, Spore, and others. (Funny that the Mac version of Spore is just the Windows version wrapped in Wine/Cider.)
EULAs, along with the "normal" licenses, should not be forced in the user's face, especially each time they want to load a program, with an annoying pop-up. Basically no one reads them or cares, and if they do they should be allowed to read them in the Help menu or whatnot, but don't pretend that you're making the user read them by shoving them into their faces when you know they'll just click OK, it's immature and anal. I'll crack the program or install something else to avoid being plagued by pop-ups, so this is really a shitty move on Mozilla's behalf. If I can't circumvent something like that I'll use the re-branded version.
Right, and the kickback against all this is really about pop-ups and the lack-there-of in most open source software. Just because something is open source doesn't mean it's free of annoying stuff like this, but it's what most Linux users are used to. Going to a browser that asks me each time to agree to some BS when I run it? Hell, I'd install a version that didn't force me to do that if it was up to me, so I think it's very lame on Mozilla's part to try to force this on users. Once at install time I could live with though but EULAs are just lame, period. Put the legal crap tucked away someplace so I can read it if I choose to do so, but don't pretend that you're forcing me to read it when you know I won't.
You need to know that software title A is software title A, I agree. If you modify something, and it's not an official modification, that difference should be noted, otherwise the original developers could be trying to help you fix a bug that wasn't their fault to begin with. So, yeah, it's just common courtesy and I don't think many would dispute that. If you fork a program you rename it, simple, everyone knows that. However, the EULA is a different matter, that IS the subject here, the branding is the side-effect, it's the stake that causes this issue to arise. By removing the brand, you can avoid the EULA. So, would you like to use Firefox if it pops up each time you open it with a stupid EULA, or would you not mind using the exact same browser basically only re-branded so that you don't have to? The point is, it's up to you, so I really hope that Mozilla would reverse this whole decision and stop being anal about EULAs, they're retarded and no one reads them and they get in the way. I'd be OK with clicking OK once perhaps on installation though, but not every time loading it up. If it was really open though, any licenses should be in the program files someplace and shouldn't be "in the way", like with all GPLed software apparently, and I prefer it that way.
Pop-ups are annoying and also you shouldn't have to deal with them with open source software like Firefox. I think that's the main subject here.
You could also make it more viral, so when someone tries to access your Samba share or print server, they'd get a nasty EULA pop-up, and when you tried to view a file you copied from a Samba share, it'd also request that you acknowledge that the file may be all bad because it came from the share, and then if you share that with others it would make them agree to it too!
"This file came from computer A which came from a computer which came from a program which came from a computer.........which is now on your computer B. We cannot be held responsible, it was their fault not ours, do you agree to hold everyone between point A and B responsible and not us?"
(Y)es master, (N)o - no + yes.
Thank you! I think you answered my question I had about EULAs. So the difference here then is that the Mozilla license that Firefox uses allows EULAs to be presented, or at least leaves it open as for if they are allowed or not, but the GPL specifically states that there is only the GPL and nothing else, you can't come along and tack on these extra licenses for users or whateverthecrap you want to, you're only stuck with that SINGLE license and that's it? I'm kind of interested in possible loopholes in the Mozilla license then because if their license leaves the door open to additional licenses, couldn't those licenses then impose on extra restrictions that weren't included in the "normal" one? Perhaps I should just view it as a change in the license for the program though, and everyone should just look at Mozilla as having officially changed their license in a sense. In that case, Iceweasel, if it has a less restrictive license essentially, and because clicking OK to a EULA every time I wanted to load Firefox would be freaking annoying, I might have to switch. =/
Not to mention that the reality is it's just legal BS, because you can leave a browser running and someone else can get on, etc etc, I mean I have Firefox running 24/7 myself. I think if you want to read and understand the legal blatherings about the software you use, you should be able to do so, but not forced into it. No one reads it, no one cares, you should read it before using the software if you want to. That's the way things should be, any way, but the sad reality is that certain countries happen to be sue-crazy which is the reason for constant EULA pop-ups in the first place. I blame lawyers and the legal system.
Or quite simply, more and better Linux software. ^^