You were arguing that having control over something (as in “being able to maintain/repair, modify or even resell” it) isn’t a requirement for the thing’s ownership?
Then what does “ownership” entail? Being allowed to use the thing but not modify or repair it? I’d argue that this isn’t what “ownership” means.
Neither of the Wikipedia pages exist?
Free as in freedom (in your own home) and open source as in you open the source of water coming in.
So what does “ownership” mean then for software?
I know that Bitwarden is headquartered in California, but they do have Bitwarden.eu, which I would think is operating inside the EU?
If you don’t rock and stone, you ain’t coming home.
Did I hear an rock and stone?
[email protected] ~200 subscribers
[email protected] ~100 subscribers
[email protected] ~40 subscribers
Thank you!
What’s a nibling?
I didn’t pay for Google services, but used the Play Store for buying PowerAmp, which I just pirated after de-googleing.
You just concentrated 4 top tier shitposts into a single comment.
How would you power them without a battery? It doesn’t matter if it’s really power efficient if it isn’t getting any power.
Also Estonia, especially the erasable one
But no small or translucent batteries
That doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a fair trial.
I was under the impression that the company owner pays for insurance?
Then what are? Why wouldn’t the ability to maintain/repair, modify or resell be requirements for ownership?
If “ownership” doesn’t have a unified meaning, then I can interpret “ownership” as the ability to maintain/repair, modify or resell the bought item.