Re: [Trisquel-users] Questions About Keepassxc, VeraCrypt, ZuluCrypt and Some Others
> thought that the VeraCrypt people had cleaned up TrueCrypt. https://www.veracrypt.fr/en/VeraCrypt%20License.html It is probably the truecrypt license part which stops veracrypt from getting free software. Still you got the veracrypt source code. https://www.veracrypt.fr/code/ Which has been audited https://blog.quarkslab.com/security-assessment-of-veracrypt-fixes-and-evolutions-from-truecrypt.html
Re: [Trisquel-users] Question about Ubuntu/Trisquel binary packages
Thanks for your replies! That is a relief. I thought for a moment that Trisquel was using binary packages from Ubuntu.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Question about Ubuntu/Trisquel binary packages
Right. Some programs need to be modified and the Helpers do that so that: The kernel needs to have blobs removed, Firefox needs to be rebranded into Abrowser (along with privacy changes made), Ubuntu branding needs to be changed, and more. In this way a person doesn't need to do these tasks manually each time a new package version comes out and you can achieve some level of automation, and "only" need to fix the Helpers when things break.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Off-topic: The end of Freedom in GitHub
There may be a slight misunderstanding. That's not quite what I was mentioning. Let's back up for a moment to what nadebula.1984 said. nadebula.1984's original statement that I was responding to about was exactly this: "I can publish a GNU GPL v3-or-Later licensed free/libre software, but I can also explicitly prohibit anyone from using it without violating GNU GPL." Let's stop there for a moment. Note their words are "using it", not "distributing it" but "using" it. As in, executing the program on their CPU. Perhaps that isn't what they meant (since later comments refer to distributing/sharing) but it's what they said because "using" a program is not the same as "distributing" or "sharing" it. Anyway, I was pointing out that a prohibition on "using" the program (i.e., executing it on their CPU) would be a "further restriction" within the meaning of Section 10. That's why I had quoted the piece like "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program." So they can "use" it (assuming that they get a copy.) :) But yes, so would the scenario you mentioned.
[Trisquel-users] Re : Question about Ubuntu/Trisquel binary packages
As far as I understand, the Trisquel project builds all the binary packages it distributes from source. A "helper" may modify the source of a package (typically to solve a freedom issue) but most packages are built from their unmodified sources the Trisquel project gets from Ubuntu (because nothing has to be modified).
[Trisquel-users] Re : Off-topic: The end of Freedom in GitHub
I believe you are talking about different points and that you are both right. The common part of your scenarios is "Alice develops a program; she distributes a copy of it to Bob, under the term of a free software license; she does not like Carol." nadebula.1984 says Alice does not have to distribute a copy of her program to Carol (true by law: being the author, she basically does whatever she wants with her work) and neither does Bob, even if the license he received is a free software license: freedom 2, to redistribute exact copies is a freedom, is a freedom, not an obligation; jxself says Alice forbidding the distribution, for instance by Bob, of the program to Carol through the license (she gives to Bob) turns that program nonfree for Bob (indeed, he cannot fully exercise freedom 2) but, for the GNU GPLv3, such a further restriction would have no effect, because it contradicts other terms.
[Trisquel-users] Question about Ubuntu/Trisquel binary packages
How Trisquel is developed? I read the link under documents (about Trisquel development) but there is something that’s not quite clear to me. According to README.md in the package-helpers packages are build from source; “This set of scripts are helpers that modify and create the source packages coming from the Ubuntu upstream which need it.” So my question is, is this is the case with all the packages? Are all the packages build from source or are there Ubuntu binary packages been use as well ? Or it is a mixed of binary and packages build from source?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Off-topic: The end of Freedom in GitHub
You decide your refusals. Microsoft/Github decide their refusals. What freedoms decide Trisquel project to deny or restrict? (not only on software code context but also on participation) El 31/7/19 a les 5:13, xliang9...@live.cn ha escrit: > I don't violate Freedom 0 if I deny someone to access a free/libre > software.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Off-topic: The end of Freedom in GitHub
notabug.org service uses gogs.io software framagit.org service uses gitlab.com software El 31/7/19 a les 3:09, e...@disroot.org ha escrit: > https://notabug.org/hp/gogs/issues/236 > > I think it would be a better option using https://framagit.org
