Windows is not free! [Archive]

Bölvaður

July 6th, 2009, 05:53 AM

I have to agree. This is not the right way to get more people to support linux...

We can say this company has only 1 intention, to gain money by selling software. That might be wrong, but just pretend for a second that gaining money is their thing.

They will get publicity and broad user base on the linux side (I have used it, it's in the repos I think) and from there other's that use windows might need this program and know about it through linux user recommendation or have used it personally.

Many companies do this.
I remember xchat and an antivirus software being free for linux users but not windows users.

Download F-PROT Antivirus for Linux Workstations
- for home use

The license for F-PROT Antivirus for Linux Workstations is free for home users, when used on personal workstations.

There are probably more examples of this.

stwschool

July 6th, 2009, 05:56 AM

While it's not 100% moral, playing devil's advocate for a moment I can see it this way:

1. Source code is available. Presumably windows users can easily download the source code and compile their own if they want it free.
2. The charge is for creating a compiled binary. Linux users don't pay because it's either in the repos, pre-compiled by the distro, or they download and compile it themselves. Windows users pay because the compilation is done by the vendor, a service s/he is charging for.

So.. windows users have the option of free, but most won't take it because compiling code is scary.

juancarlospaco

July 6th, 2009, 06:23 AM

1. Source code is available. Presumably windows users can easily download the source code and compile their own if they want it free.
2. The charge is for creating a compiled binary.

+1

credobyte

July 6th, 2009, 06:38 AM

Discrimination ? Where ? If source code is available for both platforms, who cares ?

moster

July 6th, 2009, 06:58 AM

That's not funny at all; that's discrimination.
What the f***!?

That I not expect from linux user. DEVELOPERS need to BUY windows if they already do not have it, to make installation for them and possibly test it on vista, xp, server... If you have cracked version of XP it do not mean everybody can do that, specially firms.

Ok, you are not developer, but think little before you said something like that. It is really insulting for developers who make this progg and give source code for free and you call them like that.

betrunkenaffe

July 6th, 2009, 07:25 AM

I thought this was funny.

monsterstack

July 6th, 2009, 07:28 AM

I've seen a few companies do this. PowerISO do it as well, I think, or at least they did. The Linux version was just a simple terminal application, which is all it really needed.

Giant Speck

July 6th, 2009, 08:06 AM

That I not expect from linux user. DEVELOPERS need to BUY windows if they already do not have it, to make installation for them and possibly test it on vista, xp, server... If you have cracked version of XP it do not mean everybody can do that, specially firms.

I don't understand your argument. I seriously doubt the developer is charging for his program because he himself had to pay for Windows. If that kind of mindset was commonplace, you'd have to pay for any software that ran on Windows.

Ok, you are not developer, but think little before you said something like that. It is really insulting for developers who make this progg and give source code for free and you call them like that.

I don't have to be a developer or programmer to be critical of someone else's actions.

And while the reason this program costs money for Windows users and doesn't for Linux users has been explained far better than your post, I still think it is a bit outrageous to charge twenty dollars for a binary when you give away the source code for free!

If the developer had provided the program and its source code for free to Windows users but charged Linux users $20 for a .deb or .rpm, would you be so quick to defend the developer?

tbroderick

July 6th, 2009, 08:15 AM

While it's not 100% moral, playing devil's advocate for a moment I can see it this way:

1. Source code is available. Presumably windows users can easily download the source code and compile their own if they want it free.

So.. windows users have the option of free, but most won't take it because compiling code is scary.

Linux version is GPL, Windows version is not. Same app, different code.

monsterstack

July 6th, 2009, 08:19 AM

I don't understand your argument. I seriously doubt the developer is charging for his program because he himself had to pay for Windows. If that kind of mindset was commonplace, you'd have to pay for any software that ran on Windows.

I don't have to be a developer or programmer to be critical of someone else's actions.

And while the reason this program costs money for Windows users and doesn't for Linux users has been explained far better than your post, I still think it is a bit outrageous to charge twenty dollars for a binary when you give away the source code for free!

If the developer had provided the program and its source code for free to Windows users but charged Linux users $20 for a .deb or .rpm, would you be so quick to defend the developer?

I just went and compiled it. I'm impressed. I was expecting a lousy terminal application, but it's actually a pretty standard GTK app, with icons and everything. I wasn't expecting it to be GPL'd, either, but it is. I guess so long as they've got the source available, they aren't breaking any specific rules. Even so, it still feels a little sneaky. Basically they're cashing in on Windows users' expectation to have to pay for stuff. Seeing as it's GPL'd, though, there shouldn't be any reason why someone can't make a Windows binary and distribute that.

Edit:

Linux version is GPL, Windows version is not. Same app, different code.

Oh man, now it's really sneaky.

moster

July 6th, 2009, 08:39 AM

I don't understand your argument. I seriously doubt the developer is charging for his program because he himself had to pay for Windows. If that kind of mindset was commonplace, you'd have to pay for any software that ran on Windows.

I don't have to be a developer or programmer to be critical of someone else's actions.

And while the reason this program costs money for Windows users and doesn't for Linux users has been explained far better than your post, I still think it is a bit outrageous to charge twenty dollars for a binary when you give away the source code for free!

If the developer had provided the program and its source code for free to Windows users but charged Linux users $20 for a .deb or .rpm, would you be so quick to defend the developer?

Well, I would let developers decide on what do and how to charge for they software. Pay them if you must, donate if you want or just use it if you like, they give YOU for free. But no, you have to take a dump on it.

You not write one line of code in your life for free software, and do not understand how is to spend you own free time to make some useful software ang give the to community. And then come you and call them racist because they did not compile it for free for BallmersOS.

CJ Master

July 6th, 2009, 08:45 AM

And while the reason this program costs money for Windows users and doesn't for Linux users has been explained far better than your post, I still think it is a bit outrageous to charge twenty dollars for a binary when you give away the source code for free!

If the developer had provided the program and its source code for free to Windows users but charged Linux users $20 for a .deb or .rpm, would you be so quick to defend the developer?

I wouldn't care. After all - somebody else would've already compiled the source code and put it in the repo's anyway.

WatchingThePain

July 6th, 2009, 08:53 AM

It would seem a bit discriminating to some, due to how it's been worded -
A bit "point blank".

Anyway active iso burner is probably better than that.

At the same time Windows users should know better than to expect stuff for free.

Sand & Mercury

July 6th, 2009, 08:57 AM

@ CJ Master: Way to sidestep the point.

You not write one line of code in your life for free software, and do not understand how is to spend you own free time to make some useful software ang give the to community. And then come you and call them racist because they did not compile it for free for BallmersOS.
wut

You guys are clearly missing (or avoiding) what GS is trying to get at. Why should a Windows user have to pay to use the same feature that a Linux user gets for free. That's clear bias and we don't need that kind of attitude because it swings both ways. Though in this case, I'm really not fussed because it's just some crappy disc image program.

moster

July 6th, 2009, 09:08 AM

Ok, I little overeacted. Developers are people, need to eat, have family... not everybody work for salvation army. I just want to say. It is honest way to make some money in NOT evil way.

They are not lock you on one OS, they give you source code, wtf would you ask for more.

dmizer

July 6th, 2009, 09:12 AM

Why should a Windows user have to pay to use the same feature that a Linux user gets for free.

While I agree that two wrongs don't make a right, I seriously don't see how you can criticize the dev for this. They at least provide a Windows version. That's way better than, "we're sorry, we don't support anything but Windows."

Also, I think that I (as a Linux user) get a whole range of things for free that are not, and never will be, available to Windows users. I mean, why should I have to purchase another copy or Windows when I get a new computer? With Linux, I can just swap or clone the old drive and I'm done. Are you going to suggest that this feature (available on every Linux system) is an affront to Windows users everywhere who are being discriminated against as a result of their choice of OS?

Some software is available for Windows and not for Linux. Some software is available for Linux and not Windows. Some software is available for Mac and not Windows. Some software is available for Linux and not Mac (at least not unless you run it through an X emulator) ... this is nothing new, this is one thing that makes OSs different, and is what I would consider nothing more than healthy economic competition.

monsterstack

July 6th, 2009, 09:19 AM

Some software is available for Windows and not for Linux.

Some? Software that doesn't run on Linux is something grumpy Linux and smug Windows users never cease to stop posting threads about. :P

dmizer

July 6th, 2009, 09:21 AM

Some? Software that doesn't run on Linux is something grumpy Linux and smug Windows users never cease to stop posting threads about. :P

I took license for literary effect ;)

Giant Speck

July 6th, 2009, 09:26 AM

They are not lock you on one OS, they give you source code, wtf would you ask for more.

The website does give you the source code for free, but does not let you know that the source code can be compiled on both Windows and Linux. They deliberately hide that fact so that they can make money off a pre-compiled binary for Windows users.

An average Linux user can get everything they need from this website free of charge and because they use Linux, they are more likely to know how to compile the source code.

An average Windows user most likely expects an .exe and probably doesn't even know that compiling programs is possible in Windows. Therefore, they are duped into thinking they have to pay for the program or switch to Linux to get it for free.

By hiding the fact that the source code can be compiled in Windows and by charging twenty dollars for a pre-compiled .exe file, the developer is exploiting the assumption that Windows users don't know how to compile software. And I don't have to be a developer to think that's wrong.

Bigtime_Scrub

July 6th, 2009, 09:27 AM

That is the Windows tax you have to pay if you use Windows. People who use Windows are used to either having to pay for their software or flat out pirating it.

It is totally fair because the Linux tax is me having to hunt down drivers for my graphics card and my wireless which may or may not work.

moster

July 6th, 2009, 09:34 AM

The website does give you the source code for free, but does not let you know that the source code can be compiled on both Windows and Linux. They deliberately hide that fact so that they can make money off a pre-compiled binary for Windows users.

An average Linux user can get everything they need from this website free of charge and because they use Linux, they are more likely to know how to compile the source code.

An average Windows user most likely expects an .exe and probably doesn't even know that compiling programs is possible in Windows. Therefore, they are duped into thinking they have to pay for the program or switch to Linux to get it for free.

By hiding the fact that the source code can be compiled in Windows and by charging twenty dollars for a pre-compiled .exe file, the developer is exploiting the assumption that Windows users don't know how to compile software. And I don't have to be a developer to think that's wrong.

This forum is the last place I would expect to read something like this. Linux users in general are probably most discriminated people in history of OS and I now listen about poor windows users who have "no other choice but pay".

Install windows then and fight for your rights! I cannot be more in this thread, I am too nervous this morning...

tbroderick

July 6th, 2009, 10:12 AM

The website does give you the source code for free, but does not let you know that the source code can be compiled on both Windows and Linux.

Only the Linux version is open source (GPLv2). You can't compile the Linux src into the Windows version. Try it.

Giant Speck

July 6th, 2009, 10:36 AM

Only the Linux version is open source (GPLv2). You can't compile the Linux src into the Windows version. Try it.

Then that makes it even worse. Why offer the open-source version to Linux users but then force Windows users to pay for a closed-source version? It doesn't make any sense to me.

monsterstack

July 6th, 2009, 10:55 AM

Then that makes it even worse. Why offer the open-source version to Linux users but then force Windows users to pay for a closed-source version? It doesn't make any sense to me.

I was grumbling about this over on another thread. The more people do this sort of thing, the more Windows users will believe that the majority of free software is complete garbage, or nothing more than a scam. What surprises me is the effort these folk presumably had to put into making two, incompatible, completely separate, differently licensed applications that do the exact same thing. They're asking for trouble with the GPL if this is their game. This is one of the few instances where a BSD licence would have been a better choice. They could have re-used loads of their code and packaged their Windows binary with a moronic EULA and still provide a source package that vaguely compiles on Windows.

Johnsie

July 6th, 2009, 11:01 AM

If it's legal then it's fine. People are entitled to do whatever they want as long as it's within the confines of the law.

TBOL3

July 6th, 2009, 01:22 PM

Seriously, why are you in such a huff about this? This type of thing happens all the time.

Take Real Basic for example. The basic windows version is $100, and I think the pro is $300.

But for linux, they'll give you the basic one for free. (okay, so not exactly the same, as they're trying to get you to buy the pro version).

So, what's the big deal. Just because you don't understand the marketing strategies of one company, doesn't make them evil or bad.

juancarlospaco

July 6th, 2009, 03:34 PM

Be a man, compile...

MasterNetra

July 6th, 2009, 03:53 PM

Though yes it is kinda discriminating to charge for one version and not the other, but perhaps they are just trying to help the Linux community but need to make money and sense the bulk of people use windows they charge for the windows version? Curious though on a side note Autodesk provides purchasable version of Maya for Windows, Mac, & Linux...but only provides demo versions only for windows & mac, couldn't that be interpreted as being at least a bit bias?

Swagman

July 6th, 2009, 04:35 PM

Perhaps the developer Likes Linux and hates Windows ?

Seems like a good enough reason to me.

nothingspecial

July 6th, 2009, 04:54 PM

The app is free for everybody.

All a windows user has to do is download a linux distribution, install it, then they can use it too.

Simple

Shibblet

July 6th, 2009, 07:15 PM

The website does give you the source code for free, but does not let you know that the source code can be compiled on both Windows and Linux. They deliberately hide that fact so that they can make money off a pre-compiled binary for Windows users.

I don't know a thing about car engines, so I take my car to a garage, and they fix it and charge me a fee. Sounds like the same thing.

Bob doesn't know a thing about programming or compiling, so instead of downloading the source, he gets the Windows binary, and he is charged a fee.

Sounds reasonable to me.

FuturePilot

July 6th, 2009, 07:27 PM

This is nothing new (http://www.xchat.org/windows/)

jimv

July 6th, 2009, 07:57 PM

I have to agree. This is not the right way to get more people to support linux...

Plus no one wants to compile source code to use someone's crappy app.

jimv

July 6th, 2009, 07:59 PM

Visual studio professional isn't free nether. Unlike the IDE en compilers under Linux. So, you need to get your money somewhere.

You don't need Visual Studio Pro. The Express editions will work for 99% of anyone's developement needs.

Shibblet

July 6th, 2009, 08:10 PM

Wow, I just thought it was kind of funny to see that, I didn't think it would spark a 40+ post thread!

Regardless... to address the issue.

If it's coding a program that people need, or helping someone with learning an operation, creating a walkthrough, or just pointing a person in the right direction, that seems to be the point of Linux to me.

I've been running Ubuntu since 8.04 (About a month before 8.10 came out), and after joining the forums, I have been helped numerous times. Simple walkthroughs, complicated walkthroughs, driver updates, kernel updates, even just having someone point me in the right direction (start with all windows maximized).

At this point, I only use Windows for Adobe CS4. When I can get this working in Wine, Windows will be gone.

I think the idea of Windows is that it is a commercial distribution, designed to run software that is sold. The OSS community for Windows is really small.

I think the idea behind Linux, especially Ubuntu, is to belong to a community. A helpful, creative, constructive, community that shares the same idea. Give back to your community.

And he has done that by releasing the code.

dragos240

July 6th, 2009, 08:14 PM

Be a man, compile...

The above is win.

eragon100

July 6th, 2009, 08:20 PM

The nice space shooter game Astromenace is like this as well. Linux version is 100% free and open source, windows version costs 20$,- and is closed source.

It would be nice if goverments and such manage to make it impossible to pirate software -- porer people would be forced to use free software like linux because they wouldn't have money to pay for windows and the like. That would rock :guitar:

Sand & Mercury

July 6th, 2009, 08:22 PM

Shibblet

July 6th, 2009, 09:53 PM

In general I think it's a bad idea to force users to do anything. The superior mode should win out over the competition by its own merits.

Right! Like...

Betamax
Laserdiscs
Super Audio CD's
MiniDiscs
BeOS
DTS
PS3

shadylookin

July 6th, 2009, 11:53 PM

Idefix82

July 7th, 2009, 12:05 AM

By hiding the fact that the source code can be compiled in Windows and by charging twenty dollars for a pre-compiled .exe file, the developer is exploiting the assumption that Windows users don't know how to compile software. And I don't have to be a developer to think that's wrong.

Sorry, I read through this whole thread but haven't found what I was looking for: an explanation of why you think it's wrong. Could you please explain the moral principles that this violates? Maybe we can take it from there.

Shibblet

July 8th, 2009, 02:29 AM

Sorry, I read through this whole thread but haven't found what I was looking for: an explanation of why you think it's wrong. Could you please explain the moral principles that this violates? Maybe we can take it from there.

Charging for a service isn't wrong.

Although, you might have some moral issues if you give away apples to people with roller skates, but not people who ride bikes...

moster

July 8th, 2009, 08:25 AM

Charging for a service isn't wrong.

Although, you might have some moral issues if you give away apples to people with roller skates, but not people who ride bikes...

I see it as little different way. "If you choose to be a slave, you must take some beating."

(or be free) :D

travy4911

July 8th, 2009, 04:17 PM

I don't think it's a moral issue. Linux is free and anyone can get it and install it with some know how. I have learned more in the last month with linux then I did in my whole life as a windblows user. It's more of an issue of wether or not you want to switch to linux and get it free or stay with windows and pay for it.

Shibblet

July 8th, 2009, 07:46 PM

I see it as little different way. "If you choose to be a slave, you must take some beating."

(or be free) :D

I would say, "If you choose to use a commercial product, you choose to pay for it."

I don't think anyone "chooses" to be a slave.

moster

July 8th, 2009, 07:49 PM

I would say, "If you choose to use a commercial product, you choose to pay for it."

I don't think anyone "chooses" to be a slave.

I use phrase "slave" because it is opposite of "free".

They choose NOT to be free. Well, if you are not free you are slave. Slaves do not have freedom.

edit:
If I hurt someones dual-boot feelings, I am deeply sorry :)

Shibblet

July 8th, 2009, 08:07 PM

I use phrase "slave" because it is opposite of "free".

They choose NOT to be free. Well, if you are not free you are slave. Slaves do not have freedom.

edit:
If I hurt someones dual-boot feelings, I am deeply sorry :)

According to my Hard Drive, Slave is the opposite of Master. Does that make Linux Master of your PC? ;)

moster

July 8th, 2009, 11:37 PM

According to my Hard Drive, Slave is the opposite of Master. Does that make Linux Master of your PC? ;)

Do not mix apples with pears :)

If you must have some NAME (!?) I would not call linux master or slave, I would call it... hm... companion? :D

benj1

July 9th, 2009, 12:54 AM

perhaps the original version was released open source for linux, the devs though hey this is good we can sell this, and decided to rewrite it and sell it to windows users, while maintaining the original free open source linux version.

another more likely explaination is that there are translation projects in the community section, perhaps they maintain the open source linux version to involve the community in translation (which people would be less likely to do for a closed source paid for app), yes they perhaps lose some (linux) sales, but they gain free translations.

yanom

July 10th, 2009, 05:34 PM

While it's not 100% moral, playing devil's advocate for a moment I can see it this way:

1. Source code is available. Presumably windows users can easily download the source code and compile their own if they want it free.

A compiling-literate windows user can compile it then give away for free the binary they made, undermining the company

forrestcupp

July 10th, 2009, 06:07 PM

GCompris does the same thing.

I had an old computer for my kid that wouldn't run Linux well, so I had to leave XP on it. So I went to install the Windows version of GCompris on it, and found out the Windows version is crippled unless you pay. They even stated on their web site that the reason they did this was to promote Linux on the desktop.

They can do what they want, and it's legal, but it pissed me off. It's no different than web sites that block Firefox and only allow IE. I've heard plenty of Linux users grumble and complain and cry about that. But when the exact same principle is applied to their benefit, they can't see why anyone would think there's anything wrong with it.

I totally support people charging for their product, but if you're going to cripple someone, cripple everyone.

A compiling-literate windows user can compile it then give away for free the binary they made, undermining the companyUnless the license for the Windows version states that you can't redistribute the software in binary form. Since they're charging for it, I'm betting there's a clause for that in there.

Not only that, sometimes the code isn't enough. Sometimes the code will be provided, but the content, i.e. media, will not be provided. So compiling code doesn't do you any good without the content. That's how the open source versions of things like Quake work.

earthpigg

July 10th, 2009, 06:10 PM

read through the thread, and im surprised that i am the first person to consider this:

as linux users, its in our repos. we can download the source and compile it ourself, but most of us probably wont if we want to use this software.

who pays for our repository servers?

....

who pays for the server ISO Master's .exe is on?

projects do not pay for themselves. maintaining a windows version is likely much more expensive than maintaining a linux version -- and having an open-source linux version benefits the project as a whole, including the windows version.

BoyOfDestiny

July 10th, 2009, 06:18 PM

It is the devloper(s) choice. A similar example is with iNES:

http://fms.komkon.org/iNES/

The Windows version is commercial, while *nix versions are freeware. I remember that ******* me off back in the day (it was $35 if memory serves, and the emulation wasn't perfect and used midi for audio output...)

Ultimately though, it's more like sites that block IE to recommend firefox. It's done on purpose and not the result of inertia.

I dunno, I guess since I'm a Linux user, and the shoe is on the other foot so to speak, it's funny. If it's a Free or Open Source project, there is always the chance to compile it under cygwin or something like that.

I guess I'm just wicked, but to be honest if some free projects (and in some cases the only real competitors of popular proprietary software) started just providing source code, plus *nix binaries, without a win32 pre-compiled. Well, schadenfreude! :popcorn:

earthpigg

July 10th, 2009, 06:40 PM

anyone have any guesses as to why it uses the GPLv2, and specifically includes this:

Important NOTE: both bkisofs and ISO Master are distributed under
the version of the license that follows (Version 2, June 1991), not
an earlier one and not a later.

- Andrew Smith

??

BoyOfDestiny

July 10th, 2009, 06:48 PM

anyone have any guesses as to why it uses the GPLv2, and specifically includes this:

??

Developer's choice.
In regard to the GPL:

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

earthpigg

July 10th, 2009, 06:55 PM

BoyOfDestiny

July 10th, 2009, 07:06 PM

BoyOfDestiny: i know. i should have made my question clearer -

what does the GPLv2 give them that GPLv3 does not?

i know that TiVo-isation is the reason GPLv3 was created.

how could that concept be applied here, and to the advantage of whom?

Oh I see. Well your guess is as good as mine. One could always email the head developer.

For those interested, a quick overview of the differences of gplv2 and gplv3, including things like compliance violations too.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html

Shibblet

July 10th, 2009, 07:47 PM

I think one of the big drawbacks in the Linux community is that we (for the most part) believe that software "should" be free.

There is no reason to nullify compensation to a person who spent their time and effort to make something that we all use.

But if you look at from the programmers point of view... he's going to release the source to the Linux community under the GNU, there's no point in charging for it, no one would pay.

But then he could release the same program, recompiled for Windows, where most people don't download source, and charge for it, because people will pay.

Makes sense to me.

earthpigg

July 10th, 2009, 08:00 PM

But if you look at from the programmers point of view... he's going to release the source to the Linux community under the GNU (i assume you mean GNU GPL), there's no point in charging for it, no one would pay.

then don't release it under the GPL, problem solved. i myself have purchased two pieces of closed-source linux software in the last 2 years -- there is a market.

But then he could release the same program, recompiled for Windows, where most people don't download source, and charge for it, because people will pay.

Makes sense to me.

preying on ignorance.

how would you feel about me taking the source code, renaming it "CD Master Plus" or something, and distributing to ignorant windows users for a fee?

he put more work into it than i did, therefore its ok for him to prey on ignorance?

Shibblet

July 10th, 2009, 09:22 PM

then don't release it under the GPL, problem solved. i myself have purchased two pieces of closed-source linux software in the last 2 years -- there is a market.

Fair enough... but if he used the libraries to create it, he kind of has too, doesn't he?

preying on ignorance.

how would you feel about me taking the source code, renaming it "CD Master Plus" or something, and distributing to ignorant windows users for a fee?

A fool and his money... But I hear you dude.

he put more work into it than i did, therefore its ok for him to prey on ignorance?

See, it is, and it isn't. The free version is out there, if users so choose to go after it. He's not preying on ignorance, so much as he's charging for a service. Auto repairmen prey on ignorance. His service is to build and compile it to a (in his case) non-native OS.

You know, we see this from a weird point of view. Large companies like Canonical, Google, even Sun release products to the market for free. These companies make money in different ways. Google makes money on advertising. Canonical and Sun on customer support. This guy probably only has a computer or two at his house, and some programming knowledge.

So I say to him, "You go boy!" He's doing the best of both worlds. Supporting the Linux community with a great product, and making some money in the commercial (Windows) industry.

The money he makes from his Windows release allows him to continue making great programs for the Linux community, and to continue his business ventures with Windows.

earthpigg

July 10th, 2009, 09:23 PM

The following is not fair to the non-free closed-source competition of ISO Master:

-there is zero indication anywhere on the website that it is GPL'd software being distributed.
-the source code is marked as the "Linux Version".
-if it becomes known that a closed-source programmer has studied* GPL'd code, it could make him unemployable - or, perhaps, less employable.
-if it becomes known that a closed-source competitor to ISO Master has programmers that have studied* the GPL'd code of ISO Master, that closed-source outfit could end up in a lot of legal trouble.

SCO vs IBM, anyone? sure, IBM won... but at what cost?

with the shoe on the other foot, should we now abandon our sense of justice that screamed "this is unjust and crap!" when it was Linux that was the victim?

*'study' is, of course, the word lawyers would inevitably use. even if the guy downloaded it, opened license.txt, saw the words "GPL", and deleted the entire thing immeditaely.... the debate over evidence and the exact meaning of the word 'study' would quickly become a multi-million dollar affair.

Colo2

July 10th, 2009, 10:08 PM

It is the same principal as a windows product costing money and a very similar Linux product coming out for free :|

forrestcupp

July 11th, 2009, 02:08 PM

BoyOfDestiny: i know. i should have made my question clearer -

what does the GPLv2 give them that GPLv3 does not?

i know that TiVo-isation is the reason GPLv3 was created.

how could that concept be applied here, and to the advantage of whom?

Do a search here for old threads about GPL2 vs GPL3. When v3 was being released, there were plenty of threads arguing about it.

There are reasons that Linus decided to stay with v2 for the kernel. He was one of the most vocal about it.

It's been a while so I don't really remember, but I remember not liking some of the changes.

Distorted Humor

July 11th, 2009, 05:26 PM

I was grumbling about this over on another thread. The more people do this sort of thing, the more Windows users will believe that the majority of free software is complete garbage, or nothing more than a scam. What surprises me is the effort these folk presumably had to put into making two, incompatible, completely separate, differently licensed applications that do the exact same thing. They're asking for trouble with the GPL if this is their game. This is one of the few instances where a BSD licence would have been a better choice. They could have re-used loads of their code and packaged their Windows binary with a moronic EULA and still provide a source package that vaguely compiles on Windows.
Nothing wrong with the GPL, unless they took some GPL code from someone else to write their closed source windows version. Copyright law protects the actual implementation, not the concept behind the implementation. and Copyright law is the basis for the GPL.

As for GPL v2 and GPLv3, the v3 gives less freedom to the end user by limiting there data choice. For example, under GPL v2, it is fine for me to send out a movie player with the source code (which you are free to modify, as long as you sell/offer those modified versions, you offer the source code) but how you use that movie player is up to the end user. V3 disallows the use of the code if you are using some types of data.

Shibblet

July 11th, 2009, 08:17 PM

Nothing wrong with the GPL, unless they took some GPL code from someone else to write their closed source windows version. Copyright law protects the actual implementation, not the concept behind the implementation. and Copyright law is the basis for the GPL.

The problem is that no one could prove it. Didn't TiVo do something like that? I could take the whole Linux Kernel, re-order the lines, possibly rewrite small portions of it, then just call it mine. Shibblet OS is now on the market, people buy it, and then after the damage is done, someone who enforces the GPL (who are they anyway?) can sue me in court. At which time they would have to PROVE that I didn't write the original source. Reasonable doubts kick in after I explain why I wrote the code the way I did, but really I just reordered the lines.

It's an extreme situation, I know, but it can be done. And I think a lot of major companies do similar things. Wasn't there a big anti-trust issue with Microsoft a long time ago? They were sued for being, and probably still are, code stealers.

As for GPL v2 and GPLv3, the v3 gives less freedom to the end user by limiting there data choice. For example, under GPL v2, it is fine for me to send out a movie player with the source code (which you are free to modify, as long as you sell/offer those modified versions, you offer the source code) but how you use that movie player is up to the end user. V3 disallows the use of the code if you are using some types of data.

It's the same thing as a car alarm. It doesn't stop a thief, but it does keep honest people honest.

lisati

July 11th, 2009, 08:22 PM

Discrimination ? Where ? If source code is available for both platforms, who cares ?

Many of the people I know (mostly Windows users) would switch into a "WTF" mode if they were expected to compile stuff....

Shibblet

July 16th, 2009, 12:43 AM

Many Windows users that I know, aren't using Open Source, but still get their software for free... if you get what I am saying.

You get a bit distraught when you buy an expensive piece of software, like Photoshop, and your friend looks at you and says, "Dude, I just got whole Adobe Design Suite on LimeWire."

Tibuda

July 16th, 2009, 01:11 AM

Shibblet

July 16th, 2009, 01:18 AM

If you try to introduce this friend to Ubuntu, he'll think that Synaptic is the same as LimeWire. :)

LOL... if you find the Adobe Design Suite in a Ubuntu Repository... ;)

Tibuda

July 16th, 2009, 01:25 AM

LOL... if you find the Adobe Design Suite in a Ubuntu Repository... ;)
I mean he would think that the stuff you get from Synaptic is pirated software.

Shibblet

July 16th, 2009, 01:26 AM

I mean he would think that the stuff you get from Synaptic is pirated software.

I gotcha... I just thought the Adobe thing was funny.

Adobe seems to be a big reason why people still use Windows. And I guarantee you a majority of the people out there who use Adobe products, didn't get it legitimately.