Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Jun 2007 22:44 UTC
Permalink for comment 250593
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-11-26
Which brings us to this story. A bunch of people wanted some better software but were deprived of their right to improve their own situations. These people wanted some improvements made to some non-Free software (Windows Longhorn in this case). They had to do this the hard way as they were not given access to the code. They modified Longhorn despite the fact that MS disapproves of these actions as stated in the EULA. These people did not have freedom 1 of Free software. When these people tried to distribute their changes, they got a cease and desist notice. These people did not have freedoms 2 and 3 of Free software.
What point is there in modifying software for the benefit of general users if literally noone is allowed to benefit from the modifications? Non-Free software is literally retarding society's natural tendency to advance by retarding the evolution of shared knowledge.