 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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] anonymous org> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
