Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: vallor Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,alt.os.linux,alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.mobile.android Subject: Re: A good thing or a bad thing (Was: Tutorial: Working example of removing & re-installing Android system apps from a PC) Date: 8 Apr 2025 22:57:30 GMT Lines: 110 Message-ID: References: <7u5lblxjel.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <6rhvblxb0d.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <3qegclxei2.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net zEGFp/Yvufdkc56LU7Z3wA/r99K0J+DR/Fh4UOoq6eA7ck9ZXE Cancel-Lock: sha1:KIrVLMVY36taGHwL1sWSCoDceOA= sha256:BHefeSodAA9XTBAewYrAHwVUq71pZZXV3fYPot6Jwps= X-Face: +McU)#<-H?9lTb(Th!zR`EpVrp<0)1p5CmPu.kOscy8LRp_\u`:tW;dxPo./(fCl CaKku`)]}.V/"6rISCIDP` User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Hmm4; f7d29671; Linux-6.14.1) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:145464 alt.os.linux:81321 alt.comp.os.windows-10:183396 comp.mobile.android:147705 On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 22:50:43 +0200, "Carlos E.R." wrote in <3qegclxei2.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>: > On 2025-04-08 18:42, Alan wrote: >> On 2025-04-08 04:06, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2025-04-08 11:19, Daniel70 wrote: >>>> On 8/04/2025 4:07 pm, Marion wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 02:37:12 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote : >>>>> >>>>>>> There is free open source software which does not cost money but >>>>>>> when distributed by the Apple App Store, it's locked to a specific >>>>>>> Apple ID. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No other operating system vendor does that for software that is >>>>>>> free. >>>>>>> Only Apple. >>>>>> >>>>>> AGAIN, that is not FREE Software. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stop calling it Free. It ain't. This is serious, Arlen. Study it >>>>>> up. You claim to be clever. Be it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Call it whatever you want to call it, but that's what Apple does >>>>>>> to it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't care who does it. >>>>> >>>>> The fact that only Apple adds locks (to an Apple ID) on software >>>>> that no other operating system locks is the technical point that >>>>> matters here. >>>>> >>>>> That lock goes on *all* software from Apple. Every single app. Every >>>>> type. >>>>> No matter what type of app it is. It gets that unique lock only >>>>> Apple does. >>>>> >>>>> That's what's different. The lock. It's unique. Only Apple does >>>>> that. >>>>> >>>>> That lock prevents re-use. And that lock allows Apple to track you. >>>>> And that's what's bad. >>>>> >>>> Am I mis-reading what is being posted here?? >>>> >>>> Both Marion *AND* Carlos E.R. seem to be suggesting that *only* Apple >>>> locks a user into their/Apples system .... Other OSs/systems are not >>>> locking their users into THEIR OSs/Systems. >>>> >>>> Or am I mis-understanding what is being posted?? >>> >>> No, I am saying nothing about the lock. I don't care, I don't have any >>> Apple. >>> >>> What I say is that if there is a lock, the Apple software may be >>> gratis, but it is not Free (as in Freedom). Free means I am free to >>> take the source code, remove the lock, recompile, and sell it myself. >>> With variants in the details by the licensing. >>> >>> >> Carlos, you personally don't get to decide for the world what the word >> "free" means. > > It is not my definition. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software > > *Free software* > > Free software, libre software, libreware[1][2] sometimes known as > freedom-respecting software is computer software distributed under terms > that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to > study, change, distribute it and any adapted versions.[3][4][5][6] Free > software is a matter of liberty, not price; all users are legally free > to do what they want with their copies of a free software (including > profiting from them) regardless of how much is paid to obtain the > program.[7][2] Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give > end-users (not just the developer) ultimate control over the software > and, subsequently, over their devices.[5][8] > > The right to study and modify a computer program entails that the source > code—the preferred format for making changes—be made available to users > of that program. While this is often called "access to source code" or > "public availability", the Free Software Foundation (FSF) recommends > against thinking in those terms,[9] because it might give the impression > that users have an obligation (as opposed to a right) to give non-users > a copy of the program. > > Although the term "free software" had already been used loosely in the > past and other permissive software like the Berkeley Software > Distribution released in 1978 existed,[10] Richard Stallman is credited > with tying it to the sense under discussion and starting the free > software movement in 1983, when he launched the GNU Project: a > collaborative effort to create a freedom-respecting operating system, > and to revive the spirit of cooperation once prevalent among hackers > during the early days of computing.[11][12] > > >> Sorry to burst your bubble on this. > > Sorry to burst yours. Aw, you beat me to it. You are correct, of course -- it's free as in "free speech", not "free beer". -- -v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti OS: Linux 6.14.1 Release: Mint 22.1 Mem: 258G "Mothers are the necessity of invention -- Calvin"