New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
In some countries it is illegal. Here it is up to one year prison time for producing or distributing pornographic materials.
I presume in Iran is illegal too. Maybe North Korea also, but we were talking the laws in the producer's jurisdiction.
You can always find some country where something is illegal or some religions, ethnic groups, sex are discriminated against, does that mean we should now all start propaganda to show houtus have smaller brains, or some gods are fake and others are real ? Or maybe that women are only good in the kitchen and as masturbators that produce and take care of children ?
In some countries is illegal to drink also, yet the prohibition doesnt have that many fans today as it had in the 20's in US.
Since the majority is/was drinking, the priests had to find other enemies to wage war against, only minorities fit the bill for that.
No, actually i believe there are much more countries where it is illegal. Not that it is not present, but there are some (usually not enforced) things in the law that says it's illegal.
edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_by_region
I am not disputing numbers here, as I said, there are probably more countries where women are discriminated against, whether it is written in the law or not, this does not make it right, nor a model to follow, much less shows the need to setup groups of vigilantes in the companies to promote one view or the other if the law doesnt go fully with their religion yet.
It is perfectly OKto fire someone for watching porn at work, completely different to make sure that person is not able to watch porn at home.
As I understand it, here in the US, legal porn is protected under the first amendment. Is a license agreement that limits freedom of speech enforceable?
Yes, because you're entering into that license with a private company.
Thank you.
PS: The fact nginx doesn't waste time parsing every folder for a .htaccess and similar rules its one of it's better traits in regards to performance (though httpd can do the same by not using .htaccess (or looking for it) at all and keeping all the rules and such in the core configuration files), course some people are just way too dependent for out of the box htaccess files with scripts.
Far as Open Lightspeed goes, I'm wondering if some people are confusing litespeed with lighttpd by some of the comments I'm seeing.
In other words, a private company can choose not to hire women or latinos, because the constitution does not apply to them.
Similarly, a paper can start hate propaganda against a certain group of ppl (not that they are not doing it, but they deny it and the government doesnt try to uphold the law as long as it would protect the "wrong" group of ppl) since they are privately owned and the law doesnt apply in their backyard.
I don't like the idea that my web server's license prohibits me from hosting certain content, but not close to the same thing, IMO.
Civil Rights Act says employers can't do this on race, gender, or religion. They can discriminate based on sexuality or gender identity, except in states which have passed their own laws.
Absolutely correct. First Amendment, press, etc etc etc..
Not anymore. About a year ago the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that discriminating against someone based on sexual orientation or gender identity is sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the CRA.
Oh, neat. Figured that wouldn't be a thing until ENDA passed.
Could be why OpenLiteSpeed did away with .htaccess files but kept Apache rewrite syntax support ?
As to comments of TOS, so you folks saying if that Litespeed Enterprise TOS was removed prohiting certain content, you'd use Litespeed ? If OpenLiteSpeed wasn't subject to same TOS, you'd use OpenLiteSpeed or at least consider it ?
I'm sure not everyone here runs porn sites, so seeing as OpenLiteSpeed is free, why not give it a good try first ? Interested in your folks tests and comparisons to Nginx as well
Huh? OpenLiteSpeed is licensed under the GPL, which is non-discriminatory in nature. Even if they were to require you to adhere to TOS before you could download (which they don't seem to be doing), they couldn't stop anyone from downloading it and then passing it on to whoever they wish to. The "second-hand recipients" would not have to abide by said TOS.
Guess folks here are confused then, this thread is about OpenLiteSpeed and not Litespeed Enterprise
Just install OpenLiteSpeed since few hours a go and still gather the basic knowledge for it. In term of OpenLiteSpeed, is Debian harder to handle compared to Centos?
Yes, but the main topic is LiteSpeed going GPL which means changing the license and discussions about the license types and restrictions are on topic. Comparisons beteen the two with focus on differences are also full legit.
Becoming GPL is not about becoming free as in gratis, it is mostly about the freedom to be used and improved upon, sure, being free to use is also a factor, but not the main one IMO.
I am considering it, it is a proven technology and now with the openeness will be even more secure, it is the first time I am considering a full Apache replacement for real.
nginx was never my thing, and discussions about the license are happening there too.
People who don't like porn have rights too. When you make a product which is not food, clothing, housing, or anything arguably within your basic human rights to obtain you should be free to distribute it to who you wish for the purposes that you desire and to say otherwise is to infringe upon the rights of the developers. Also the GPL has become stupid and works against its own original purpose and they shouldn't have chosen it. The moment the GPL said "we're all about freedom of choice unless you choose to use a closed system" they made the entire thing into a joke.
That said, hopefully someone builds some modules to make up for what they took out
Unless your OS is iOS lol. The whole thing is becoming very discriminatory in regards to what systems you're allowed to run GPL software on.
See: https://developer.pidgin.im/wiki/WhyNoiOSVersion
GPL is no longer about freedom, its now about control and trying to twist people's arms into excluding who they don't like. Trying to force people to open their systems by exclusion tears at the very concept of "freedom."
Completely agree. They have the right not to watch it, I dont see how ppl using apache to host porn could force the ppl which dont like porn to watch it.
The world is big enough for everyone to find a place under the sun. As long as you do not harm the other which has a different view, dont bomb him because he prays to another god or is unlucky enough to be born on the land claimed by others in the name of their gods, dont try to put barriers on the labour market to keep them poor and uneducated, dont try to forbid them from going in certain areas or stay on certain seats in the bus, it is fine.
The amish dont like the rest of the world, but they didnt make laws to force the rest of the population to live like them, they probably would have done it if they could, but lucky they are a tiny minority, what are we doing with the majority of haters ?
I think only education is the solution and the fight is fierce there to change the schools to teach only the holy books or what is "approved" or at least doesnt contradict them, even if it is proven scientific fact.
The more hate we teach in schools, the worse will be the world of tomorrow, no religion will ever win, countless religious wars proved it, it is only a way to make more money and aquire new territories for some while deflecting the public attention from the way they fill their pockets behind your backs.
Agree with that...
@jarland did point out something i didn't even think about, possibility of extending OpenLiteSpeed from other contributors.. that could be very interesting indeed especially with OpenLiteSpeed GUI based admin console.
I think it may be the other way, some people will improve their products after looking at litespeed, but certainly, it will be improved too.
In the end, everyone wins, this is the purpose of cooperation and freedom of choice.
Chanel total switch to litespeed?
@Maounique A lot of your comparisons are about people forcing others to live by their rules. As this software is not required to perform the function that the software performs, is not required to maintain any quality of life, is the creation of its developers and is in no way a public asset, you're looking at it the wrong way. In no way can you say that anyone needs or deserves LiteSpeed.
If you were forced to purchase it or had no way to run your business without their software then exclusion might be somewhat comparable to civil rights. If I make a shoe and say "only white people can wear this" and charge a ridiculous price, this should be MY right as the creator of that shoe. You can get shoes elsewhere at a better price. You can get government assistance to purchase these other shoes. If I want to exclude people from using something that I built with my hands, I should have that right and you should have the right to choose my competitor over me. Otherwise you're forcing your way of life on me. The idea that "everyone should have liberty except those who disagree with me" is a self defeating philosophy. This is not about equal rights because you have no right to what I built unless I say you do. Your "right" is to exclude me from your purchases and choose someone else or make your own.
Just my thoughts. If you support freedom of the individual you should support it all around from every angle and not just when you like their exercise of it.
I am sorry, but you are wrong. In no way can you say anyone needs to eat at McDonalds, yet, if they reject latinos or chinese, that is not acceptable. They could eat all they want at KFC, still they have the right to eat at McDogFood if they wish so, the fact McDo is a private company or that there are alternatives does not mean they can do that.
When a company offers something to the public, they have to offer it to all citizens, you are free to sell something only in your church, no undesirable will come buy it, but if you sell it on the street at a given price, everyone paying the price can have it.
You cannot invent a pill to cure cancer and say only the people of my religion will get it, wrath of god struck the others, they should die in pain, or fund campaigns to convince gays not to use condoms because AIDS is a divine punishment, this is morally wrong even if your education says otherwise.
So if you build something and sell it to someone you no longer have individual rights unless you agree with your philosophy? Gotcha. Didn't know that coders gave up their human rights. Can you draw a list of people that you believe are required to be slaves and are not allowed to exercise the freedoms that you expect others to give you?
McDonald's could sell to who they wanted. Your duty and my duty would be to not buy their product so they would never be a problem and they would be laughed at. You're basically saying its wrong to force someone to your personal standards unless they don't meet your personal standards. That's hypocrisy on its most basic level.
The cancer pill thing proves you didn't read what I said. A web server serves no beneficial purpose to the human race and there is absolutely no way to argue that this one is a NEED for anyone. You are comparing things that do not belong in the same discussion. When you build something that cannot even be argued as a human right to obtaining, you cannot say this is equivalent to a pill that cures cancer. The very notion that a web server is equivalent to watching someone die is so absurd that I don't even know how a reasonable mind could even arrive at any conclusion that links the two.
Your reasoning reads like this: Excluding a use that you find immoral from your software licensing is wrong because killing people is wrong.
In no way is this logical, reasonable, or sane. It could easily be restated to "pink is blue because red is orange" and maintain the exact logical flow. I mean no offense brother but your philosophy continues to be "you have no right to enslave me but I have every right to enslave you."
@Maounique if a certian restaurant decides not to sell any alocholic drinks this is not descrimination against those who love alochol.
Also if a certail restaurant bans smoking in the restaurant this is not a discrimination against the smokers.
Also if a certail restaurant bans smoking in the restaurant this is not a discrimination against the smokers.
That is correct, but they own the restaurant. Selling a license means you no longer own it, you only have the right to sell other licenses and keep your trademark/product protected under the law.
Once I sell the house I can no longer forbid X and Y to smoke in it. It is no longer mine.
You can forbid the owner of the license from tampering with the code, for example, but you cannot forbid him to use it with certain content.
it is like Ford will sell cars with a clause not allowing them to be driven on certain roads or by certain people, request from the driver a strict dress code, etc. You dont do that, it is absurd.
But when you buy it (license) you did agreed on some terms.
@Maounique I agree for sell. I disagree for rent. However, you have a right to not buy as well. And come on, lets stop with the insanity of saying that refusing 1 paid web server in a market filled with better free ones is equivalent to watching a cancer patient die. I mean, I want whatever pill you take that makes those two comparable.
I refused business to a spammer the other day does that make mean I set Africans on fire at KKK meetings?
Barack Obama is president therefore Tupperware is killing Canadians.
My iPod is playing music therefore spaghetti.
My dr pepper bottle is empty therefore barbed wire fencing.
Anyway enough of my arguing with you @Maounique. You know we're good now :P
We just both think the other is a bit nuts haha. But that's the beauty of creating a society where people are allowed to disagree. Trying to create a society where you force everyone to do what you think is right will never make a peaceful world. That's exactly why the world isn't peaceful. Keep in mind that the fruit vendor is a person too. Enslaving him is no better than enslaving the buyer.