Yeah I’ve seen it on twitch. We are joeover.

What of I told you there is an easier way of blocking ads: noscript.

I’m just going to steal this, don’t mind me.

GPL is free (or libre) software. FOSS is a modern term adopted by companies.

That’s the same I’m saying. What you quoted just says that you can charge for distributing free software but you cannot force other holders of the software to distribute it asking for a charge.

You as a distributor can charge for what you distribute, that’s it. And it has been done with a lot of free software, like with Linux. That’s why basically Linus changed his License from explicitly free in money to only free as in freedom.

The thing is that free software allows to have a paywall if the distributor wants it. Which has a lot of sense. But does not allow to enforce it to other distributors.

Richard Stallman distributed GNU tools by a price. HIS distribution of GNU tools. At the same time you can also get the GNU tools from idk Debian mirrors (for free).

Free software isn’t free as in money. That’s the whole point. The adoption of Open Source by the “cool” companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.) has tainted the original meaning of free software.

Sha1 hash do you mean? Sha1 is just a hash algorithm.

If webpages are storing plain password and not the hash, we should be worried

If the source code is free software you are free to share it if you have a copy of it.

I did that my self (fixed the chip), the cables and everything shiped with it are trash.

You can change for software distribution (binaries).Directly from gpl site…:

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney)

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my distribution site? (#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee)

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. Under GPLv2, if you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary. If the binaries being distributed are licensed under the GPLv3, then you must offer equivalent access to the source code in the same way through the same place at no further charge.

If you want to install this please DO NOT USE THE CH341A programmer. That fucking shit has the internal control signals and data signals at 5V and the bios chips usually work at 3.3V or lower.

The CH341A is defective by design and the Chinese manufacturers don’t care. There are fixes online, but still the chip works badly.

If you want to install libreboot, please use any other option given at Libreboot docs. I lost too many hours because of the fucking Chinese ch341a. Which I solved quickly with a pi pico board.

In any case do not use this guy’s video as an example. The instructions of the video ARE WRONG and you may fry your bios. Don’t be fooled by this youtuber confidence. Follow the docs.

I’ve installed it on a x220.

It’s free software. You can charge money for distribution of free software but if the user does then he has the right to have acces to the source code forever no restrictions. And that user is free to distribute copies of the software as he wishes.

Pretty much sums up every thing

Hahahahhahahha

The rick and morty we really wanted.

With only “The String” (registered trademark) you have the djent

Because Google Chrome setups a good framework from the moment you open it to track, collect data, basically free market your internet life. Companies like to work the less possible using the least money, if Google already gives them all that setup for a fee then it’s more profitable than having to pay programmers to track you in other browsers.

So they deliberately are saying to your face: “I only let you use my stuff if you enter as naked as possible”. They are not even shy about it.

Someone like this only deserves a spit in the face and a domain ban. Basically. They can fuck off.

Notes: Most of what I said is not exactly all the true. Most companies just reuse webpage code that it’s only tested form chromium, so they only let you use that. Because they are lazy AF, they don’t care about customers, they only care about money.

Me no understand, me say bad. No value me want, they bad. If they don’t like things that they can’t understand probably stoo using internet and technology in general for the good. Go back to the good old rock and stone.

If you read his comments to my comments he states that following “their” (?) standards, the producers have to put much more product in order to “”““adjust””“” for the tolerance error of random consumers. Clueless.

That is scientific standards for him, not “their” standards or whatever. Yeah clueless.