Hello Steven,

On 12/07/2014 01:20 AM, Steven W. Scott wrote:
>
> I honestly have never understood the term "non-free" for software that
> I get, well, for free.
>
*** Software freedom is not a question of price, but of user control.
Devuan is a perfect example of that in action. Debian is not being
forked because of its price, but because of a decision to impose an
unpopular init-and-some-more system as the default option of the
Operating System.

You can read about software freedom there: https://gnu.org/philosophy/


> becomes difficult. I purchase a piece of equipment, as part of that
> purchase, I have right to the software for that kit. Why not just call
> the repository "unsupported?" Certainly sounds better than "antisocial",
> though I do get a chuckle every time.
>
*** Because unsupported software does not necessarily deprive their
users from freedom: https://gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary
The latest addition concerns Apple wiping out music on their customers
devices bought on their competitors' shops "for security reasons". Is
it not antisocial and an attack on their customers freedom, and stealing
of their personal possessions?

> love with github webhooks, 'cause I am all about event-driven goodness.
> I'm still testing, but it requires the repository owner, once I have it
>
*** Thank you! I would prefer a full-fledge IRC bot but commits on IRC
would definitely be useful. Whoever takes it decides :)

> (legit https site of course, no self-signed)
>
*** Self-signed certificates are not necessarily evil, and "legit" CAs
have proven compromised and unreliable more than once (remember
Diginotar...) But TLS is its own can of worms.

Regards,

==
hk

-- 
 _ _     We are free to share code and we code to share freedom
(_X_)yne Foundation, Free Culture Foundry * https://www.dyne.org/donate/