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.
Doesn't Firefox automatically spoof your browser when it has been reported to work better?
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?
Saving cookies is not the only thing Librewolf does differently from default Firefox.
Having some cookie exceptions is definitely better than having all cookies saved.
Lucida.to
!usernamechecksout@lemmy.zip ~200 subscribers
!usernamechecksout@lemmy.ca ~100 subscribers
!usernamechecksout@lemmy.ml ~40 subscribers
Public trans(it)
Is kerning the spacing between letters?
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.