Jump to content

Source Code


Recommended Posts

I can't find the source code. The FAQ states:

--

As always, the source code is available so someone else is more than welcome to do this themselves.

--

Perhaps, as this is no longer true, the FAQ can be updated? What's the matter - doesn't Microsoft like Open Source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the matter - doesn't Microsoft like Open Source?

Nothing to do with Microsoft.

There has been some trouble with a few people who used the source code to make a slightly altered version of Paint.NET; and tried to charge money for it.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=27233&p=223882&hilit=source+code#p223882

sigxz7gs5.png

My DA: http://leif-j.deviantart.com/

--------------

Some people seek justice so persistent, that they will do great injustice themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the matter - doesn't Microsoft like Open Source?

Nothing to do with Microsoft.

There has been some trouble with a few people who used the source code to make a slightly altered version of Paint.NET; and tried to charge money for it.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=27233&p=223882&hilit=source+code#p223882

But by not sharing the source you're not really going to affect those people, as they'll presumably be able to continue to get the source from the Mono version of Paint.net, won't they? Are you going to be going after those guys, or leave them alone? I guess you can always put their new work into the Windows version, although it'll be something of a once way process if they can't take advantage of your work. I didn't think that was how open source was supposed to work - I'm not sure you're really punishing the right people here. Still, if Paint.Net is no longer an open source app I guess this doesn't concern you.

Let's just hope people don't start trying to charge for Ubuntu and other open source apps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But by not sharing the source you're not really going to affect those people, as they'll presumably be able to continue to get the source from the Mono version of Paint.net, won't they? Are you going to be going after those guys, or leave them alone? I guess you can always put their new work into the Windows version, although it'll be something of a once way process if they can't take advantage of your work. I didn't think that was how open source was supposed to work - I'm not sure you're really punishing the right people here. Still, if Paint.Net is no longer an open source app I guess this doesn't concern you.

Let's just hope people don't start trying to charge for Ubuntu and other open source apps!

1. There is no official "Mono version" of Paint.NET. Miguel and the guys at the Paint.mono project are just using the source code that was formerly posted on getpaint.net, same as everyone has available. They don't get any special help from Rick at all. So with the source code no longer released on the GetPaint.NET website, they're restricted to using the source from the last stable version that was posted (3.36, I think). Sooner or later, people will notice that the programs people are selling are all identical - and they'll stop buying them. Plus, the opportunity for people to just download and build the source is lessened, as the code must now be tracked down "Somewhere on the internet" - not just found immediately.

2. Rick has "gone after them," in a way - inasmuch as he's asked the hosting sites to take them down and sent them what amounts to cease and desist letters (Michael J Hardy comes to mind as one of the worst offenders here, having done it at least three times) but the license he releases Paint.NET under limits the legal action he can take.

3. I don't understand the bit about putting their work into the new Windows version. Paint.NET has no association with or ownership by Microsoft. Never has. The only connection is that Rick Brewster works for them.

4. Paint.NET has never been truly "open-source" in the collaborative, community-driven meaning of the word. It was "released-source" for a while, but practitioners of "backspaceware" ruined that. Rick has never accepted unsolicited code, and most (90% or so) of the program is designed, written, and maintained by him, and always has been. (The other 10% comes from people he knows personally and plugin authors who write something he asks to include) This did not change with the removal of the source from the website. The ethos of the Paint.NET project remains the same.

5. You've erected a straw man in talking about "charging for Ubuntu." There has never been any fee for Paint.NET, and - unless Rick has made some pretty huge changes in his philosophy about the program - there will never be any fee for Paint.NET.

I'm continually amazed at the incensed nature of people who angrily decry Rick for having removed the source, as if it's an assault on human rights. Yeah, it'd be nice if he could've left the code available. But some unscrupulous people have ruined that for him. And for the hundreds of good coders around the web that would have made Paint.NET into something better. And all because they wanted to make a buck or two off of someone else's work.

 

The Doctor: There was a goblin, or a trickster, or a warrior... A nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies. The most feared being in all the cosmos. And nothing could stop it, or hold it, or reason with it. One day it would just drop out of the sky and tear down your world.
Amy: But how did it end up in there?
The Doctor: You know fairy tales. A good wizard tricked it.
River Song: I hate good wizards in fairy tales; they always turn out to be him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. I don't understand the bit about putting their work into the new Windows version. Paint.NET has no association with or ownership by Microsoft. Never has. The only connection is that Rick Brewster works for them.

I don't quite understand what you mean here. I mean put any new work written by the Mono guys for the Linux version into the Windows version. I didn't mention Microsoft at all.

I'm continually amazed at the incensed nature of people who angrily decry Rick for having removed the source, as if it's an assault on human rights. Yeah, it'd be nice if he could've left the code available. But some unscrupulous people have ruined that for him. And for the hundreds of good coders around the web that would have made Paint.NET into something better. And all because they wanted to make a buck or two off of someone else's work.

I've not seen anyone incensed about it, but I've not really looked for it. It's his app - he can do as he likes with it. It's really nothing to do with me. As someone who's stopped using Windows (other than for .net work) and jumped ship to Linux (better, faster, more secure, more FUN) I naturally looked for a Linux version of Paint.net, and it would seem that Paint.net not providing the source code any more makes it unlikely that there'll ever be a Linux version which matches the Windows (not Microsoft!) version. More people are going to use Paint.Net if it's available on more platforms, after all. (I wrote a game once in Java for phones, uploaded it to a site and have since seen tacky `download ring tones and wallpaper here` sites try and sell it - I don't care, as I wrote it for a laugh, to learn a little java, not for the money. If people want to try and make money out of it, why should I care?)

Let's be honest - the sort of people who unknowingly download and use rip-off versions of Paint.net aren't going to know that they're using an app based on older version of the source. I'm sure if they knew there was a free alternative they'd use that instead. And more people are going to know that if it's available on more platforms. I really liked Paint.net but now I have no choice but to use one of the (many) other free graphics editors out there. That's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I wrote a game once in Java for phones, uploaded it to a site and have since seen tacky `download ring tones and wallpaper here` sites try and sell it - I don't care, as I wrote it for a laugh, to learn a little java, not for the money. If people want to try and make money out of it, why should I care?)

You should as they make there selfs rich from your hard labour. It like working for someone and you do all the work but the guy next to you takes the credit and does notthing. Then when pay day comes around you get fired and the guy next to you gets your pay check along with his own :roll:.

I understand some of the reasons Rick got rid of it. One is people ripping him off, the other is people looking for support and get mad when he tells them there is no support. I don't think Rick ever did really support the Source Code, I believe he even used to take any comments / documentation out of it before uploading it to the site.

Yes it sad that it no longer here. I though it was a good thing for people making plugins and add on's more then anything. But I guess thats limited to people who got old code or are members of the private forums here.

As for people selling Paint.NET. I see them all over eBay and there selling the new version. They don't need the Source Code as I see them selling download links for the exe.

By the way I do Java programming as well but I never did any for cell phones. Does the Java on phones be the same or is it another version for cell phones only with less classes or new classes ?, Can you program like you would for a Java program or would it have to be done like a Java applet ?

I like to know as I am working on a Rcon tool that I like to support on many OS, and devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I wrote a game once in Java for phones, uploaded it to a site and have since seen tacky `download ring tones and wallpaper here` sites try and sell it - I don't care, as I wrote it for a laugh, to learn a little java, not for the money. If people want to try and make money out of it, why should I care?)

You should as they make there selfs rich from your hard labour. It like working for someone and you do all the work but the guy next to you takes the credit and does notthing. Then when pay day comes around you get fired and the guy next to you gets your pay check along with his own :roll:.

I understand some of the reasons Rick got rid of it. One is people ripping him off, the other is people looking for support and get mad when he tells them there is no support. I don't think Rick ever did really support the Source Code, I believe he even used to take any comments / documentation out of it before uploading it to the site.

Yes it sad that it no longer here. I though it was a good thing for people making plugins and add on's more then anything. But I guess thats limited to people who got old code or are members of the private forums here.

As for people selling Paint.NET. I see them all over eBay and there selling the new version. They don't need the Source Code as I see them selling download links for the exe.

By the way I do Java programming as well but I never did any for cell phones. Does the Java on phones be the same or is it another version for cell phones only with less classes or new classes ?, Can you program like you would for a Java program or would it have to be done like a Java applet ?

I like to know as I am working on a Rcon tool that I like to support on many OS, and devices.

It was a couple of years ago, but I used Netbeans to develop in J2ME - java for mobile edition. Think the M is for mobile. There's j2se for server and j2ee for enterprise. J2me was a slightly older version of java. I think it was v1.3 where elsewhere java was up to v1.5. Also, that's just a language thing - you also have to be aware of which device you're targetting - different mobiles/pdas have different support for hardware like 3d, sprites, memory etc. And there's limited support for floating point maths - you have to use integers. All this is from memory but I think it's correct. I liked Netbeans - plus it was easy to use SDKs for the various phones. A number of phone manufacturers, in addition to Sun, produced emulators so you could run your app/game on the PC to test/debug it. I would consider learning web development using Java, but I looked fairly recently and it looked like classic asp to me - sort of 5 years behind where .net is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...