XPost: comp.sys.mac.system, alt.comp.os.windows-10, comp.mobile.android   
   From: vallor@cultnix.org   
      
   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"   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)