 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.01.2013 16:53, schrieb Warp:
> 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?)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
