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