 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-01-16 07:58, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> Let's try another example:
>
> Suppose a book shop has a pile of several books outside, with a sign
> saying "free books!" So I pick one up, and walk off with it.
There was no sign on the Adobe page saying you could download the
software for free. Bad analogy.
>
> But now it turns out that the particular book I picked up was put there
> in error by the shop staff; it should actually have been full-price. So,
> hypothetically, I have committed a theft.
>
> Now watch the shop try to prosecute me for theft. That's not going to
> fly. You see, theft is one of these crimes which requires *intent*.
>
> If you walk into somebody's house and take something, even if the door
> is left wide open, it's pretty obvious that you shouldn't be doing this.
> But if I shop offers you the wrong book for free, you have acted in good
> faith, and it's difficult to see how the courts could impose any sort of
> sanction against you. They might well order you to return the book, or
> perhaps pay some small cost to the shop. But since it was clearly the
> shop's error and you clearly did not take the book maliciously, I very
> much doubt there would be any criminal penalties.
>
> Similarly, Adobe has some obsolete software on their site for download,
> complete with license keys. There is absolutely nothing on that page
> explaining that you're not actually allowed to download the software or
> use the license keys. It's a reasonable thing to believe that a company
> might legitimately do. I don't see how anybody making that mistake would
> be liable for anything more that desisting from using the software.
There is also nothing on that page telling you you are allowed to
download it for free. It is NOT accessible from the home page, unless
you search for it in their search widget.
The only people who get ot that page KNOW exactly why their going to
that page. They're either legitimate users of CS2 who need to reinstall
the software they paid for and were directed there by the Adobe customer
support or Adobe's user forums, or, they're people who are trying to get
a free lunch because they read some blog post (or Forbes article on it)
This is no longer you picking up a book that shouldn't have been on the
"free" table by mistake. This is you going to the book store WITH the
intent to get THAT book that shouldn't be there, because your firend
told you it was there.
Yes, the store owner was careless, but you also have the intent to steal
the book.
>
> Now, if Adobe were to just put a notice on the page explaining the
> situation - which would take then about 30 seconds - then the entire
> argument changes. Now anybody taking this stuff would know that they're
> not supposed to have it. That would be an entirely other matter...
Agreed.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> The law is not on the author's side - an author can't give you something
> for free then come around a week later and demand you pay for it.
Many companies (including Adobe, a bit ironically in the context of this
conversation) offer free licenses to students. The stipulation is that
when you stop being a student, you can't use the software legally anymore
without acquiring a new license.
So yes, companies have full right to distribute something for free and
then later demand money.
And this particular case is not even that. They are offering a download
of their software *for people who have a legal license*. They have said
so themselves. It's not like they are offering it for free and then
expecting you to pay for it. They are expecting you to already own a
license before you use the software. And they have full legal right to
do so.
(Ok, it might depend on the jurisdiction. According to Finnish law,
that's *exactly* how it goes. It doesn't matter how you get the software,
if you don't have a valid license to use it, then you can't legally use it.
Most countries have similar laws.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:29:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> Get access to every CS6 application and so much more for as low as
> US$49.99 per month.
>
> Is a clue to it not being free.
To CS6 not being free. What's available is CS2 IIRC.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:25:59 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Many companies (including Adobe, a bit ironically in the context of this
> conversation) offer free licenses to students
Adobe has student/teacher pricing, but I don't think they give the
software to students for free.
I had a look at it a while back when my son was a student (he's since
graduated), and the prices are greatly reduced, but not free. They also
don't seem to have (or didn't at the time) a stipulation that once you
graduate, you can no longer use the license.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Let's try another example:
>>
>> Suppose a book shop has a pile of several books outside, with a sign
>> saying "free books!" So I pick one up, and walk off with it.
>
> There was no sign on the Adobe page saying you could download the
> software for free. Bad analogy.
No. But it's a download page with no indication that this stuff is *not*
supposed to be free. And apparently half the Internet genuinely mistook
this stuff for being free; there's a bazillion news articles about how
Adobe has decided to make their old products free. I read several of
these before I found one with an actual retraction on it.
In summary, if I hadn't gone out of my way to look, I'd have no idea
that this was actually a mistake and it wasn't supposed to be free. And
it seems plenty of journalists made the exact same mistake...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/01/2013 8:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:29:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Get access to every CS6 application and so much more for as low as
>> US$49.99 per month.
>>
>> Is a clue to it not being free.
>
> To CS6 not being free. What's available is CS2 IIRC.
>
Clue!
Which leads us to...
Morning Town Crescent.
:-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> No. But it's a download page with no indication that this stuff is *not*
> supposed to be free. And apparently half the Internet genuinely mistook
> this stuff for being free; there's a bazillion news articles about how
> Adobe has decided to make their old products free. I read several of
> these before I found one with an actual retraction on it.
So because news editors who have nothing to do with Adobe nor asked them
before publishing their articles claimed that it's free, Apple should
somehow comply? Why, exactly?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:00:27 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 16/01/2013 8:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:29:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Get access to every CS6 application and so much more for as low as
>>> US$49.99 per month.
>>>
>>> Is a clue to it not being free.
>>
>> To CS6 not being free. What's available is CS2 IIRC.
>>
>>
> Clue!
Well, there are plenty of companies that take old versions and make then
available for free - or commercial products that are now OSS (Blender,
for example).
> Which leads us to...
>
> Morning Town Crescent.
>
> :-D
Or evening town crescent? ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> So because news editors who have nothing to do with Adobe nor asked them
> before publishing their articles claimed that it's free, Apple should
> somehow comply? Why, exactly?
>
Good point; but I would imagine that *something* must have initially convinced
the tech news sites that it was all free, before Adobe's clarification. Just a
guess, though; I haven't actually read (or found) either the 'basis' of the
free-software-offer, or the 'official' direct-from-Adobe message "not to
download." Except on said tech web sites. (I would be interested to read the
original sources if they exist.)
Or did the initial 'free' idea come about simply because a tech writer somewhere
came across the (original) download page and *assumed* that the software was
free, due to Adobe's reported 'glitch'? If so, Adobe bears at least some
responsibility for the foul-up.
But this seems academic now, as Adobe then put up a (new?) page allowing anyone
to download the stuff, no strings attached.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I think the top left hand paragraph which read:
>
> Get access to every CS6 application and so much more for as low as
> US$49.99 per month.
>
> Is a clue to it not being free.
No, I think it's a clue that if you like the downloadable CS2 below you
should consider buying the latest version... Otherwise why wouldn't they
put the price and a link to buy the software that's actually on the page?
>> Another analogy I thought up, imagine a coke vending machine gets a bug
>> after a software update and then gives drinks for free. Obviously word
>> will spread and people will empty the machine pretty quickly. Coke gets
>> a call that the machine is out of order (because it's empty) and come
>> out to fix it. But they "fix it" by taking off any reference to a price
>> or having to insert coins and re-stock the machine with a huge number of
>> cans.
>
> I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination that would be
> considered fixing.
Exactly - they had the opportunity to at least shut off the machine or
simply not re-fill it yet they deliberately took different action to
further promote people taking free cans.
>> Is it legally and morally correct to then take a can without
>> paying?
>
> No it is not.
In the UK at least theft has not been committed unless you know your are
stealing. A court would have to decide whether someone taking a can from
the machine that had been modified by the manufacturer thought they were
stealing or they thought the manufacturer intended to give away the cans
for free. Given the actions taken by the manufacturer they would have a
very difficult case to convince a court people were knowingly stealing
from them.
>> What happens if a week later coke try to force everyone who took
>> a free can to pay for it by taking to court the ones who refuse to pay?
>
> Not likely, at all.
Agreed, because they would know it was unlikely they would be successful
in court due to their earlier actions to "modify" the machine.
> Similarly if an ATM gives out more money than you ask for:
>
> http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/atms-wrong-money-165239004.html
The key point is whether a person taking the extra money/goods/software
thinks they are stealing it or not. In the case of the ATM it's obvious
you are taking more than you ask for (especially if you join a queue
specifically to do that), so it's theft (under UK law at least). With
the machine modified by Coke itself to remove pricing information and
give out free cans it's likely people genuinely think the cans are being
given away for free, so it's not theft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Many companies (including Adobe, a bit ironically in the context of this
> conversation) offer free licenses to students. The stipulation is that
> when you stop being a student, you can't use the software legally anymore
> without acquiring a new license.
>
> So yes, companies have full right to distribute something for free and
> then later demand money.
Sure, but they have to tell you up front that it's only free to use
whilst you're a student. They can't not tell you that before you
download it and start using it, because you might not even be a student.
> And this particular case is not even that. They are offering a download
> of their software *for people who have a legal license*.
It doesn't say that on their web-page though - in fact they even removed
the need to log in and made the web-page available to the general
public. That doesn't sound like a download only for people who have
bought a license.
> (Ok, it might depend on the jurisdiction. According to Finnish law,
> that's *exactly* how it goes. It doesn't matter how you get the software,
> if you don't have a valid license to use it, then you can't legally use it.
> Most countries have similar laws.)
But there is no indication you need to pay for a licence, in fact it
seems impossible to do so. So you can't mislead people into thinking
it's free (as it appears many have done) and then later change your
mind. There is laws against that in most countries too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2013 12:29 AM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> No. But it's a download page with no indication that this stuff is *not*
>> supposed to be free. And apparently half the Internet genuinely mistook
>> this stuff for being free; there's a bazillion news articles about how
>> Adobe has decided to make their old products free. I read several of
>> these before I found one with an actual retraction on it.
>
> So because news editors who have nothing to do with Adobe nor asked them
> before publishing their articles claimed that it's free, Apple should
> somehow comply? Why, exactly?
No - my point was simply that *a lot* of people genuinely thought this
stuff was free. Even people who should supposedly know better. Plus,
their propagation of this idea does nothing to enlighten the general
public that this stuff actually isn't free.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This might end the controversy:
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/creative-suite-2-activation-end-life.html
...or not? ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2013 12:40 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, there are plenty of companies that take old versions and make then
> available for free - or commercial products that are now OSS (Blender,
> for example).
>
Poser gave away early versions, then gave a discount when upgrading.
That is how I got started with it.
>> >Which leads us to...
>> >
>> >Morning Town Crescent.
>> >
>> >:-D
> Or evening town crescent?;)
Now, you are just being silly. You have read the rules as often as I
have. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2013 8:29 AM, scott wrote:
.
>>
>> Is a clue to it not being free.
>
> No, I think it's a clue that if you like the downloadable CS2 below you
> should consider buying the latest version... Otherwise why wouldn't they
> put the price and a link to buy the software that's actually on the page?
>
Okay, if that is how you read it.
>>> Another analogy I thought up, imagine a coke vending machine gets a bug
>>> after a software update and then gives drinks for free. Obviously word
>>> will spread and people will empty the machine pretty quickly. Coke gets
>>> a call that the machine is out of order (because it's empty) and come
>>> out to fix it. But they "fix it" by taking off any reference to a price
>>> or having to insert coins and re-stock the machine with a huge number of
>>> cans.
>>
>> I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination that would be
>> considered fixing.
>
> Exactly - they had the opportunity to at least shut off the machine or
> simply not re-fill it yet they deliberately took different action to
> further promote people taking free cans.
>
You do remember that this is something that you thought up?
It did not happen it would not happen. CCE have procedures in place to
stop it happening.
>>> Is it legally and morally correct to then take a can without
>>> paying?
>>
>> No it is not.
>
> In the UK at least theft has not been committed unless you know your are
> stealing. A court would have to decide whether someone taking a can from
> the machine that had been modified by the manufacturer thought they were
> stealing or they thought the manufacturer intended to give away the cans
> for free. Given the actions taken by the manufacturer they would have a
> very difficult case to convince a court people were knowingly stealing
> from them.
>
Do you remember the scene in Father Ted where Ted explains the
difference between dreams and reality, to Father Dougal?
>>> What happens if a week later coke try to force everyone who took
>>> a free can to pay for it by taking to court the ones who refuse to pay?
>>
>> Not likely, at all.
>
> Agreed, because they would know it was unlikely they would be successful
> in court due to their earlier actions to "modify" the machine.
>
Go on! Tell me again why you think that a company whose sole reason to
be, is to distribute Coca Cola products for profit, would give away free
product without stating that it was free as part of a marketing campaign.
I think that you are using a very bad analogy.
>> Similarly if an ATM gives out more money than you ask for:
>>
>> http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/atms-wrong-money-165239004.html
>
> The key point is whether a person taking the extra money/goods/software
> thinks they are stealing it or not. In the case of the ATM it's obvious
> you are taking more than you ask for (especially if you join a queue
> specifically to do that), so it's theft (under UK law at least).
I might mention at this point that there is no such thing as UK law.
There are the laws of England and Wales also the Laws of Scotland and
the Laws of NI. Just a point.
> With the machine modified by Coke itself to remove pricing information and
> give out free cans it's likely people genuinely think the cans are being
> given away for free, so it's not theft.
>
Well I will let you read the Wiki entry and you can make up your own mind.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#United_Kingdom
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You do remember that this is something that you thought up?
> It did not happen it would not happen. CCE have procedures in place to
> stop it happening.
I was just trying to make an analogy with physical items. I have seen
large companies giving away free samples plenty of times before as a
marketing tool.
> Go on! Tell me again why you think that a company whose sole reason to
> be, is to distribute Coca Cola products for profit, would give away free
> product without stating that it was free as part of a marketing campaign.
When I got free samples before nobody told me it was free or part of a
marketing campaign, I just assumed it was because I was not asked to
pay. Was I meant to check before accepting the goods?
> Well I will let you read the Wiki entry and you can make up your own mind.
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#United_Kingdom
Well this is from the "dishonesty" page that it links to:
"s2(1). A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not
to be regarded as dishonest:
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the
right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third
person; or"
So it all comes down to whether the person *believes* they have a right
to the item or not, or rather whatever a court thinks they believed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2013 3:48 PM, scott wrote:
>
> I was just trying to make an analogy with physical items. I have seen
> large companies giving away free samples plenty of times before as a
> marketing tool.
>
And I am sure that it was obvious that they were free samples. Or you
would not have taken them.
>
> When I got free samples before nobody told me it was free or part of a
> marketing campaign, I just assumed it was because I was not asked to
> pay. Was I meant to check before accepting the goods?
>
Maybe my above statement was wrong.
I would say that yes, you should have asked.
>> Well I will let you read the Wiki entry and you can make up your own
>> mind.
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#United_Kingdom
>
> Well this is from the "dishonesty" page that it links to:
>
> "s2(1). A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not
> to be regarded as dishonest:
> (a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the
> right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third
> person; or"
>
I read that and am a bit surprised that neither you nor anyone else
mentioned that the theft act explicitly states... dishonestly
appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the other of it;
With downloading software you do not depriving the other of it.
> So it all comes down to whether the person *believes* they have a right
> to the item or not, or rather whatever a court thinks they believed.
>
"I believe that all property is theft."
See how far that gets you in court. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And I am sure that it was obvious that they were free samples. Or you
> would not have taken them.
To many the Adobe CS2 download page is obviously them giving away the
software for free - I doubt most people would even give it a second
thought and would just download the software (unless they happened to
have heard about the controversy) in exactly the same way they download
free software from other authors' sites.
> I read that and am a bit surprised that neither you nor anyone else
> mentioned that the theft act explicitly states... dishonestly
> appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of
> permanently depriving the other of it;
>
> With downloading software you do not depriving the other of it.
IANAL, but if downloading software without the correct license is not
theft but copyright infringement, there's a similar clause in that law:
"97 Provisions as to damages in infringement action.
(1)Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at
the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no
reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the
action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him,
but without prejudice to any other remedy."
So again the judge would ask the court, did the downloader have a reason
to believe the software on that page was not free. Given that it is
distributed in exactly the same way free software is, and not how paid
software is usually distributed then it might be tricky to insist the
downloader should have known they had to pay for it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.01.2013 13:19, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> This might end the controversy:
>
>
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/creative-suite-2-activation-end-life.html
>
>
> ...or not? ;-)
"While it could be interpreted as Adobe giving away software for free,
Adobe did it to help its customers."
So they do explicitly acknowledge that this interpretation is possible,
and they're not explicitly saying that it is wrong; they're just saying
that it wasn't their primary motivation.
To me, this reads:
"Unfortunately we had to disable the Activation Server permanently; to
help our paying customers without causing us and them too much hassle,
we deliberately chose to make the software publicly available. We're not
officially saying that you can have it for free, but we really couldn't
care less."
Maybe they just can't officially give the stuff away for free because of
some licensed 3rd party technology in there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2013 5:27 PM, scott wrote:
>> And I am sure that it was obvious that they were free samples. Or you
>> would not have taken them.
>
> To many the Adobe CS2 download page is obviously
???
> them giving away the software for free -
Wishful thinking is the kindest thing that I would say.
> I doubt most people would even give it a second
> thought and would just download the software (unless they happened to
> have heard about the controversy) in exactly the same way they download
> free software from other authors' sites.
>
That is all right then.
>
> IANAL, but if downloading software without the correct license is not
> theft but copyright infringement, there's a similar clause in that law:
>
IANAL either (I have more morals than that).
> "97 Provisions as to damages in infringement action.
>
[snip]
>
> So again the judge would ask the court, did the downloader have a reason
> to believe the software on that page was not free. Given that it is
> distributed in exactly the same way free software is,
You are sounding more and more like some one else, Scott. :-(
Are you just taking a "stance"?
> and not how paid
> software is usually distributed then it might be tricky to insist the
> downloader should have known they had to pay for it.
>
Before the internet was even thought of, there was a saying (or two).
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
If it looks too good to be true then it probably isn't true.
Etc. etc.
I am just saying that people who say that "It does not say that it is
not free so it must be free." are naive and laying themselves open to a
comeback.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:48:07 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 17/01/2013 12:40 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, there are plenty of companies that take old versions and make
>> then available for free - or commercial products that are now OSS
>> (Blender, for example).
>>
>>
> Poser gave away early versions, then gave a discount when upgrading.
> That is how I got started with it.
Come to think, yeah, I got Poser that way as well. :)
Then there's Windows - comes free with most machines. One might make the
argument that the cost is "built into" the cost of the machine, but
getting the identical hardware without Windows often costs more.
>>> >Which leads us to...
>>> >
>>> >Morning Town Crescent.
>>> >
>>> >:-D
>> Or evening town crescent?;)
>
> Now, you are just being silly. You have read the rules as often as I
> have. :-)
Would I ever be silly about MTC? ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 17.01.2013 13:19, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> > This might end the controversy:
> >
> >
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/creative-suite-2-activation-end-life.html
> >
> >
> > ...or not? ;-)
> "While it could be interpreted as Adobe giving away software for free,
> Adobe did it to help its customers."
> So they do explicitly acknowledge that this interpretation is possible,
> and they're not explicitly saying that it is wrong; they're just saying
> that it wasn't their primary motivation.
You are reading between the lines. "They are not explicitly saying that
the interpretation is wrong", therefore the interpretation is correct?
To me "while it could be interpreted" means quite unambiguously "that
interpretation is incorrect." Else they would say that it is correct.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.01.2013 20:56, schrieb Warp:
>> "While it could be interpreted as Adobe giving away software for free,
>> Adobe did it to help its customers."
>
>> So they do explicitly acknowledge that this interpretation is possible,
>> and they're not explicitly saying that it is wrong; they're just saying
>> that it wasn't their primary motivation.
>
> You are reading between the lines. "They are not explicitly saying that
> the interpretation is wrong", therefore the interpretation is correct?
>
> To me "while it could be interpreted" means quite unambiguously "that
> interpretation is incorrect." Else they would say that it is correct.
That, too, is reading between the lines.
As I said, it might well be that they would run into trouble with 3rd
parties if they explicitly offered the software for free to anyone.
Adobe's behaviour is pretty much what I'd expect in such a case.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> This might end the controversy:
>
>
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/creative-suite-2-activation-end-life.html
>
That's the first time I've seen it (just tonight.) Was it put up before the
controversy, or after? I'm wondering, because it's worded in English in the
'past tense.'
I've re-read it several times, and I still can't quite understand what Adobe is
trying to say.
This part isn't clear (to me):
"But to ensure that any customers activating those old versions can continue to
use their software, Adobe issued a serial number directly to those customers.
While it could be interpreted as Adobe giving away software for free, Adobe did
it to help its customers."
By "directly to those customers", does Adobe mean via personal email or
something like that? Or do they mean the serial number(s) that are posted on the
current download page? If the latter, then "directly to those customers" has no
meaning--at least in the sense that they imply (or hope to imply), because the
numbers are there for *all* to see and use now.
While the statement does read *somewhat* like an attempt to steer people away
from the site who don't belong there, it also seems like no more that a
'half-hearted' attempt. It amazes me that this statement isn't worded
differently, to be more clear-cut and unequivocal. It would have been so easy to
do-- "Do not download it otherwise", or some such wording. Adobe needs better
writers, at the very least. Of course, no such changes have occurred, in any
form. So the overarching question is, WHY NOT?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.01.2013 05:20, schrieb Kenneth:
> While the statement does read *somewhat* like an attempt to steer people away
> from the site who don't belong there, it also seems like no more that a
> 'half-hearted' attempt. It amazes me that this statement isn't worded
> differently, to be more clear-cut and unequivocal. It would have been so easy to
> do-- "Do not download it otherwise", or some such wording. Adobe needs better
> writers, at the very least. Of course, no such changes have occurred, in any
> form. So the overarching question is, WHY NOT?
See my recent speculations: I really think they /want/ to give away the
stuff away for free for anyone to try, with the aim to get people hooked
to buy the newer versions (note the CS6 advertisement on the page!), but
can't do so legally due to some 3rd party intellectual property in CS2.
Codecs, color management stuff, fonts - whatever.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Before the internet was even thought of, there was a saying (or two).
> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
> If it looks too good to be true then it probably isn't true.
> Etc. etc.
This is after the internet though, there are millions of pieces of
software available for free, many of which you used to have to pay for.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> See my recent speculations: I really think they /want/ to give away the
> stuff away for free for anyone to try, with the aim to get people hooked
> to buy the newer versions (note the CS6 advertisement on the page!), but
> can't do so legally due to some 3rd party intellectual property in CS2.
> Codecs, color management stuff, fonts - whatever.
That seems the most logical explanation - it is very strangely worded.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2013 8:20 AM, scott wrote:
>> Before the internet was even thought of, there was a saying (or two).
>> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
>> If it looks too good to be true then it probably isn't true.
>> Etc. etc.
>
> This is after the internet though, there are millions of pieces of
> software available for free, many of which you used to have to pay for.
Maybe age is making me sceptical but I think that looking out for
yourself is still worthwhile.
It is a "byte eat byte" world out there and I bet "Core Wars" is still
running on at least one CPU.
Can you be paranoid enough?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-01-16 19:40, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> Well, there are plenty of companies that take old versions and make then
> available for free - or commercial products that are now OSS (Blender,
> for example).
Blender - the software - has been free for as long as I remember.
Initially, the company thought they would make money from sales of the
user manual. Like RedHat makes money from selling Linux support to
large companies.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> See my recent speculations: I really think they /want/ to give away the
> stuff away for free for anyone to try, with the aim to get people hooked
> to buy the newer versions (note the CS6 advertisement on the page!), but
> can't do so legally due to some 3rd party intellectual property in CS2.
> Codecs, color management stuff, fonts - whatever.
Exactly which law supports the notion that "you can use my intellectual
property in a commercial program but not in a free (but closed-source)
program"?
If Adobe has acquired the license eg. for a library for commercial purposes,
what kind of law would stop them from not charging any money for the
softare? (And why would the library owner care, as long as Adobe pays them
the proper licensing fees?)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.01.2013 16:53, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> See my recent speculations: I really think they /want/ to give away the
>> stuff away for free for anyone to try, with the aim to get people hooked
>> to buy the newer versions (note the CS6 advertisement on the page!), but
>> can't do so legally due to some 3rd party intellectual property in CS2.
>> Codecs, color management stuff, fonts - whatever.
>
> Exactly which law supports the notion that "you can use my intellectual
> property in a commercial program but not in a free (but closed-source)
> program"?
>
> If Adobe has acquired the license eg. for a library for commercial purposes,
> what kind of law would stop them from not charging any money for the
> softare? (And why would the library owner care, as long as Adobe pays them
> the proper licensing fees?)
You know, some license fees are due on a per-copy basis (actually I
/think/ it's pretty common). And I do /not/ think that Adobe would want
to /pay/ for people to use their old software.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-1-2013 15:43, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2013-01-16 19:40, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> Well, there are plenty of companies that take old versions and make then
>> available for free - or commercial products that are now OSS (Blender,
>> for example).
>
> Blender - the software - has been free for as long as I remember.
> Initially, the company thought they would make money from sales of the
> user manual. Like RedHat makes money from selling Linux support to
> large companies.
http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/history/
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:43:35 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2013-01-16 19:40, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> Well, there are plenty of companies that take old versions and make
>> then available for free - or commercial products that are now OSS
>> (Blender, for example).
>
> Blender - the software - has been free for as long as I remember.
> Initially, the company thought they would make money from sales of the
> user manual. Like RedHat makes money from selling Linux support to
> large companies.
What I recall, Blender was once a commercial closed-source product, and
the community bought the rights to distribute it as open source.
But I don't honestly know the specifics of the history prior to it
becoming open source.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:53:34 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Exactly which law supports the notion that "you can use my intellectual
> property in a commercial program but not in a free (but closed-source)
> program"?
Could be part of the license terms - not a law.
I know plenty of software that's dual-licensed in such a manner.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:25:33 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:53:34 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Exactly which law supports the notion that "you can use my intellectual
>> property in a commercial program but not in a free (but closed-source)
>> program"?
>
> Could be part of the license terms - not a law.
Or, for that matter, something they recently renegotiated as part of a
contract.
Also, see the CC:Non-Commercial license terms.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-57562515-263/adobe-releases-creative-suite-2-for-free/
no doubt The Gimp has been eating their lunch and they want to addict new
consumers ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
