Please inform yourself. In these comments and on their website, it is covered that they do not provide books freely. Just like any other library books can be borrowed exactly as many times as they own a copy.
Just like any other library they sometimes provide a download for Adobe Digital Edition, which manages your lends on books. But as your friend with DRM stripping tools for sure can confirm: DRM is just an annoyance for legitimate customers, it forces legitimate users to use specific applications, while pirates get the freedom to choose how they interact with the not any more protected media. But this is a discussion for another thread as archive.org treats copyrighted books just like any other library.
Yes, I told someone to inform themselves before making assumptions. Which, I think, is a reasonable expectation.
The rest of the comment was pointing out how archive.org acts like any other public library and therefore should not be treated differently. This does not carry hostility against the person I am replying to.
Watched Louis Rossman today, and he's part of the team behind a new app for watching online video content - not just youtube, but nebula, peertube, twitch and more....
I have found three comments from you, where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is. Although you do link to some sources, you do so without arguing your point. IMO this is not a constructive way of communication. Since I believe your perspective is purist but overall not too helpful, I will go through the trouble an actually argue the point:
Your problem is following sentence published by the OSI: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources." Which FUTO does - they won't allow you to put ads on top of their software and distribute it. But I hope that you would agree with me that GNU GPL is an Open Source License. However, they do have a copyleft which practically makes selling software impossible. If you use a library which uses the GPL, you have to make your sources available - which makes selling a compiled version a difficult task...
If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: "Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.", Grayjay fulfils this.
Wikipedia continues: "{...}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {...}", you are allowed to download and modify Grayjay. They do not allow you to commercially distribute your modifications, which is a license term.
Lets look at a big OSS company. Red Hat writes: "An open source development model is the process used by an open source community project to develop open source software. The software is then released under an open source license, so anyone can view or modify the source code." These criteria are fulfilled by the FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE (Last updated 7 June 2023). Red Hat does not mention the right to redistribute anywhere I could find it.
To those who actually read up to this point: I hope you find this helpful to form your own opinion based on your own research.
wike ai ( wike.ai )
Has anybody heard of this website and is it legit? Otherwise is there any known way of using GPT4 for free or less than 20 euros a month?
Share Your Story: The Impact of Losing Access to 500,000 Books ( docs.google.com )
The Internet Archive is under a DDoS attack ( bsky.app )
Brought to you by the Department of Erasing History.
Microsoft plans to lock down Windows DNS like never before. Here’s how. ( arstechnica.com )
A better Revanced ( grayjay.app )
Watched Louis Rossman today, and he's part of the team behind a new app for watching online video content - not just youtube, but nebula, peertube, twitch and more....