-59
votes
|
|
34
26
93
|
|
|
|
|
-58
votes
|
|
27
21
85
|
|
|
|
|
|
188
votes
|
|
215
12
27
|
|
|
|
|
|
81
votes
|
|
107
22
26
|
|
|
|
|
|
101
votes
|
|
118
8
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
votes
|
|
23
1
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
votes
|
|
3
0
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Akerbos
wrote on the 13 Jan 10 at 20:58
|
|
|
|
I think Totem does something like that but it is far from perfect.
|
|
Magnes
wrote on the 14 Jan 10 at 07:53
|
|
|
|
Why would you need to select only some of these codecs? Just install all of them. User can uninstall some of them later if he really neads.
|
|
|
Magnes: On top of that, I personnaly would not like that proprietary softwares get installed without my knowlege and consent.
Totem does not install them all at ones. It propose to install them one by one and as you say it's far from being perfect.
This kind of codec will surely be used by most users one day or an other, then why wait for this to happen risking then problems because of Repositories config?
|
|
|
|
You can do that actually sound codecs $ 24.95 + $ 39.95 Dvd $ 49.95 And other codecs might total around $ 300. So just go ahead and pay away.
|
|
|
|
@#4: A manual for ubuntu is under construction. releases with lucid. help translate and so on launchpad/ubuntu-manual
|
|
haydoni
wrote on the 16 Jan 10 at 14:11
|
|
|
This should be one of the easiest things to do and is a necessity for most users, this is a great idea.
Flushing out the flash player codec so as to play online videos (like bbc iplayer) is also very important. Certainly in the UK not being able to use BBC iplayer is a deal breaker.
|
|
|
AHHHHGGG! How many of these "suggest to the user that they break the law" ideas are there going to be??
There is a reason these codecs aren't installed by default: they are covered by patents, and their legal use requires a patent licesne in many countries, incluing the US. Ubuntu should NOT volunteer to install them arbitrarily.
The current procedure using totem is only somewhat acceptable -- it should really take users to the Canonical Software Store where they can buy the licensed codecs. But at least the way it stands now, users will only get a prompt if they are actually trying to play a file.
But why try to get them to do something that could get them sued when there is a good chance they don't even need the codecs at all? Most users will automatically say yes to such a prompt, even if they don't know what it means, out of fear of missing out on a feature.
|
|
|
@TwistedLincoln: ok, but a user should be able to watch a DVD he paid for as he already can listen to audio CDs.
And he should be able to watch Youtube and play games on Facebook, that is legal in the majority of countries.
|
|
Kubuguy
wrote on the 19 Jan 10 at 09:10
|
|
|
"ok, but a user should be able to watch a DVD he paid for as he already can listen to audio CDs.
And he should be able to watch Youtube and play games on Facebook, that is legal in the majority of countries. "
That these services do not offer content that can be freely used is their fault and not Ubuntu's. Write to their CEOs to change that. They are doing so to their own disadvantage ... Ubuntu should not bow down to their corporate interests and I would be VERY disappointed if they did.
Develop free alternatives instead and leave these dinosaurs behind I say ;) The future is freedom!
|
|
|
Flash has never been illegal, it's a choice the user is making (not using a free software).
Java works now very well with free softwares.
This is purely outragous that you cannot read legally a DVD you bought. I don't necerelly want to encourage users not to respect this law but I want at least to give them the possibility because this is purely inacceptable.
MP3 codecs are not illegal for private use are they?
If you want free software, and linux in particular to devellop you need that , because it is necessary to attract people in ubuntu.
|
|
|
@ AndrewLuecke: You are slightly mistaken. Mp3 use does not ALWAYS require a paid license, at least according to the mp3licensing.com website you link to. From their FAQ:
"However, no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with associated annual gross revenue less than US$100 000.00."
But that's neither here nor there. Canonical can't possibly know what the end-user will do with Ubuntu. A big corporation could easily request a disc via Ship-It or download an ISO image, and that company could easily generate more than $100,000 in revenue and be required to have a license.
The attitude that its up to the end user to determine if they need to pay for a license or not will not hold up in court. If you distribute software that is covered under a patent license that is clear and visible to everyone who bothers to look, there is a good chance it will end badly for everyone. Especially when you are a company that is run by a billionare like Mark Shuttleworth...
AndrewLuecke is correct -- it should be much easier to pay for the codecs legally, without jumping through hoops. Plus it is another avenue for Canonical to raise funds that help support Ubuntu.
|
|
|
I assume it would be clever anyway, to inform the user at the same time the installation proposition is made. It should give him a link wich would explain him directly the law in his country.
For the MP3 wikipédia says: "Additionally, patent holders declined to enforce license fees on free and open source decoders, which allows many free MP3 decoders to develop. Thus, while patent fees have been an issue for companies that attempt to use MP3, they have not meaningfully impacted users, which allows the format to grow in popularity."
|
|
kevrev
wrote on the 23 Jan 10 at 02:13
|
|
|
I agree with Andrew...so if ubuntu were to implement an easier solution what would that be like ?
Mandriva has their Powerpak and then theres Fluendo that sells codecs for Linux (DVD example)...
http://www.fluendo.com/shop/product/fluendo-dvd-player/
Supporting Ubuntu would be a good thing as well !
kevrev
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:13
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:14
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:15
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
Some of these ideas are promising, as improvements to the current status. However, I disagree with some terminology, specifically "Complete your desktop" makes it sound like Ubuntu is broken, and saying that these things are illegal is not justified, in my opinion, because Ubuntu is produced by Canonical, a UK company governed by UK and EU law. I think it should keep its TOR packages even though China, Iran and North Korea might disagree, and I think it should keep its MP3, DVD decryption and other codecs, even though the USA might have a hissy fit.
Also, I would like it very much if proprietary software and illegal-in-some-jursdictions software are not talked about as being one and the same. For example, the license for Flash can be found here http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ and is very different to the license of LAME which can be found here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html . Specifically, the former is proprietary software whilst the latter is Free Software.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 28 Jan 10 at 12:16
|
|
|
|
|
