2010/5/4 Ineiev
<address@hidden>
Hi, Oleg!
It is, indeed, probably too strong to say "the companies that control
the software design it to restrict the users and spy on them"; this may
imply all companies always do it, which is not proved.
Exactly so. NB. Not always 'companies' are behind the software. It could be 'one man army' project, like...for example Apollo player. So while it is not proved it shouldn't be said. Presumption of innocence.
Perhaps Matt will reword the passage once more.
(by the way, the current revision "RealPlayer, Windows Media Player,
iTunes, and other popular players require people
to use non-free software" sounds like a tautology).
Hope it will be done.
> but I'm quite sure there are many free (and non-open-source in the same time)
The recommended expressions are 'gratis' or 'zero price'.
Yup.
> audioplayers that are not spy on the users.
Can you explain why are you sure?
Well, many is too strong word maybe. I'm sure about few :) Why? Just because I know there're no reason to spy for them (people coding that software). Just because.
> What means in general word 'spy' in that context?
I believe it means they (at least) "report what each
user watches or listens to".
So it must be declared in EULA. If user agreed with EULA than it is not spying. It is free-will assignation of data to company. If it is not in EULA it must be punished by law.
> Also paragraph named 'Nothing to lose!' have too strong declaration. 'You
> don't lose any technical quality with Ogg Vorbis'. If I want to save all
> quality and compress audio in the same time then I'll go for FLAC. OGG Vorbis
> non lossless as well-known here at list, so it is destructive by it's nature.
> Please note - I'm not compare mp3 and ogg here.
But the paragraph does compare MP3 and Ogg Vorbis.
Really? Where exactly? I see only comparison about relative size.
Thanks,
Ineiev
Thanks 2u2! Best regards, Oleg