Remove the MIT License on website page ?

[pyg]

Hello world,

I'm a great fan of Paint.net, and want to thanks aigain all it's major contributors

I saw here :

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=28245

That Paint.net "is not open source"

And ( viewtopic.php?p=212737#p212737 )

Paint.NET was never open-source as the traditional definition goes.

And here ( viewtopic.php?f=27&t=28275 ), Rick says that the source code is not available (and ask us to not ask about it).

OK. It's Rick's source code, so it beong to Rick to choose the license. I repect that a lot (even if, of course, I'm sad about it).

The source code is no longer available on the source page.

But on the download page, it's written (at bottom : http://www.getpaint.net/license.html )

Can I use Paint.NET for business, commercial, or government use? Or is it only free for "personal" use?

Yes -- Paint.NET is free for all uses including personal, business, commercial, government, and school. There has been some confusion lately around the license and its seemingly hybrid MIT / Creative Commons status. Rest assured that you really only have to dive deeper into the legalities of the license if you are planning to do something such as distributing a modified version of Paint.NET. Usually this involves downloading the source code, or disassembling / decompiling stuff. If you're just installing and using Paint.NET, then there's really no need to worry about that.

I feel like a contradiction

If source code is not available, it's not open source, right ? I konw that some part of PdN are under MIT License (wich is of course totally legal), but maybe it would be clearer to say "some part of paint.net are Open source (MIT License) but Paint.net is freeware".

So maybe Rick (or website admin) may remove the licence link wich confuse a lot of users (especially foreign users like me) ?

It would make it clear once for all.

Thanks again for Paint.net

[david.atwell]

The Paint.NET code is still licensed that way. It's just not available that way anymore. You're still allowed to do those things with Paint.NET, if you still have the source code. If not, that section of the license doesn't apply to you anyway. :-)

[pyg]

The Paint.NET code is still licensed that way. It's just not available that way anymore. You're still allowed to do those things with Paint.NET, if you still have the source code. If not, that section of the license doesn't apply to you anyway.

That's the point.

OK : if I understand you well (sorry, my english is quite bad).

- Paint.NET source code is licensed under MIT License

- Paint.NET use some non Free Software licence ressources (GPC, Assets, and logo), wich is permitted by MIT licence

- Source code of Paint.NET is not downloadable (which is not an obligation, that's true)

That's it ?

OK, my problem is that if there's no way to access the source code, you can't say it's open source.

See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

And http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html

In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software.

I totally agree that "access to source code" doesn't mean "free access to source code". So Rick/Paint.NET team may sell access to the source code.

But if the answer is "there's no way to access source code. And do not ask about it" (viewtopic.php?f=27&t=28275). You can't say that last versions of Paint.NET are MIT licensed (and if I understand your previous answer, you confirm that : 'if you do not have source code, the license doesn't apply to you anyway").

Once again, I totally agree that "Free Software" mean "gratis software".

I just wanted to know if the MIT license link could be removed to avoid misunderstandings. Because, "no way to access source code" = "not compliant with open source license"

Even MIT license, because it do not fullfil my "right to modify" :

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy

of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal

in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights

to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell

copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is

furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in

all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

That's not a judgment upon Rick's choice to not make source code available (he's the author afterall), but I wanted to make sure about there is no way to access source code.

If the answer is no, I just don't understand why not remove the link on download page, or tell on the license page "Version of Paint.NET before 3.20 (or so) where under MIT License and © Rick Brewster and Paint.NET team, versions since 3.21 are © Rick Brewster and Paint.NET team" ?

That's just a sentence that would clarify the situation a lot, I think...

BTW, thanks David for your quick answer

[david.atwell]

I don't know the answer to that question. But Paint.NET was never trying to appear to be open-source by using the MIT license. It was simply the best way to do what Rick wanted to do with the software.

[pyrochild]

Paint.NET was never open source. It was source available. Throwing a FOSS definition of open source at us is irrelevant.

If you have the source, you can use it as permitted by the license. If not, oh well. There still may be ways to get it, but those won't be discussed here.

[Rick Brewster]

Paint.NET is not open source. There's no reason to put all sorts of if-then-else licensing statements on the website, that would just confuse things. I don't understand the point of this thread.

[HITMAN-X-]

I think all he saying is that any parts of the license that has open source or links to source should be removed, not re-worded.

I don't know Rick but it may not be such a bad idea as your not giving out the code any more and it may help stop people from making topics asking for it or making cases like this one.

HITMAN,

[Rick Brewster]

Umm, we get 1 topic like this per month. The license doesn't need to be changed, it still applies to binary-only releases.

[pyg]

Umm, we get 1 topic like this per month.

Woops, sorry, didn't want to be the guy who always raised the same issue :?

The license doesn't need to be changed, it still applies to binary-only releases.

I understand, but MIT license implies source code availability. So "Paint.NET is distributed under Paint.NET license, derived from MIT License", would be better than "Paint.NET is distributed under MIT License".

I don't understand the point of this thread.

Sorry, my english is quite bad. Shortly : MIT License implies source code distribution (author choose the manner/price). Paint.NET is not open source (Rick's confirmation above). So it would be a lot clearer to remove/rename link to MIT License, which is very confusing (and that's why you've got the question once per month).

[Rick Brewster]

MIT License doesn't imply anything. That's why it's called a license, and why it's written in legal mumbo jumbo, and is not "a casual list of things we felt like making you agree to." It mentions source code but does not necessitate its distribution.