Rick Brewster Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I'm slightly changing the way Paint.NET is licensed, and I want feedback on it before pulling the trigger. Before reading the rest of what I post, read the new license especially the part marked in red which is the new part. I want to get a good idea of what people think it means before I tell what it is supposed to accomplish. One big goal is that I don't want this license to be misinterpreted: I don't want people to think they can't do something when in fact that wasn't the intent at all. ... Ok, have you read it? If so, page down to the rest of this post past the quoted license. Paint.NETCopyright © dotPDN LLC, Rick Brewster, Chris Crosetto, Tom Jackson, Michael Kelsey, Brandon Ortiz, Craig Taylor, Chris Trevino, and Luke Walker. Portions Copyright © Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved. License last updated: December 11, 2007 This software is licensed as per the MIT License below, but with two (2) exceptions: * Exception 1: The Paint.NET logo and icon artwork are Copyright © Rick Brewster. They are covered by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license which is detailed here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ . However, permission is granted to use the logo and icon artwork in ways that directly discuss or promote Paint.NET (e.g. blog and news posts about Paint.NET, "Made with Paint.NET" watermarks or insets). * Exception 2: Paint.NET makes use of certain text and graphic resources that it comes with (e.g., toolbar icon graphics, text for menu items and the status bar). These are collectively referred to as "resources" and are defined to include the contents of files installed by Paint.NET or included in its source code distribution that have a .RESOURCES, .RESX, or .PNG file extension. This also includes embedded resource files within the PaintDotNet.Resources.dll installed file. These "resources" are covered by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license which is detailed here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ . However, permission is granted to create and distribute derivative works of "resources" for the sole purpose of providing a translation to a language other than English. Some "resources" are included in unmodified form from external icon or image libraries and are still covered by their original, respective licenses (e.g., "Silk", "Visual Studio 2005 Image Library"). MIT License: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php 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. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. For some background information, for after you have read the license: http://blog.getpaint.net/2007/12/04/fre ... %e2%80%9d/ http://blog.getpaint.net/2007/12/07/tip ... spaceware/ http://blog.getpaint.net/2007/12/11/pai ... g-details/ So, please respond with what you think about it, especially with respect to if you believe it will restrict anything you want or plan to do. Especially if you believe it is not going to accomplish the goals, or if you thought it meant something other than what I set forth in the 3rd blog listing linked to above ( http://blog.getpaint.net/2007/12/11/pai ... g-details/ ). Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toli Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 It seems ok and fair to me. I don't feel restricted is a bad way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zagna Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 A translators point of view... For example, even though the RESX files are no longer released you can still generate them from the publicly available RESOURCES files. From the blog... if the english .resx is going to be unavailable it will be a minor annoyance for atleast me. By using a previous version .resx and a newer version .resx, it was very easy to spot new strings by just diffing it because all the old strings are in the same order in the new .resx. So I could just copy the diff to my own .fi.resx. If I need to decompile a .resources file all the strings come out in a random order. This makes easy spotting without some kind of nice xml editor a hard thing. And Notepad++ is 'just' a text editor. This is my only concern, license change otherwise doesn't trouble me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew D Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I guess this will do very well, quite well aswell, mainly as I only look at Paint.NET's source mainly for plug-in development. I'm pretty happy with this, seeing as it means not as much stuff is restricted, just certain parts made to hinder the idiots who rip off freeware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted December 12, 2007 Author Share Posted December 12, 2007 A translators point of view...... From the blog... if the english .resx is going to be unavailable it will be a minor annoyance for atleast me. By using a previous version .resx and a newer version .resx, it was very easy to spot new strings by just diffing it because all the old strings are in the same order in the new .resx. So I could just copy the diff to my own .fi.resx. If I need to decompile a .resources file all the strings come out in a random order. This makes easy spotting without some kind of nice xml editor a hard thing. And Notepad++ is 'just' a text editor. This is my only concern, license change otherwise doesn't trouble me. The English .resx will still be provided. Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.atwell Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I think that this is more than fair. You're releasing far more than anyone should expect or ask for, and you're providing for many people to benefit on an educational level. Quote 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 More sharing options...
BoltBait Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I'm a little surprised that you will be retaining this part of the license agreement: (emphasis mine) 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 Is it really your intention to allow people to sell copies of your software on eBay? Quote Download: BoltBait's Plugin Pack | CodeLab | and a Free Computer Dominos Game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted December 12, 2007 Author Share Posted December 12, 2007 It's hard to block that without limiting many other things. My defense against eBay-selling is the text in the installer that says, "Paint.NET is FREE OF CHARGE ..." Hopefully "customers" of these scammers will go, "Ohhhhh. HEY! Refund!" Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkShock Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Not to be rude,but I'd laugh at the sucker who buys Paint.net Quote ---- Gallery | Sig Tutorial | deviantART | Sig Videos | PhotoBucket ----D E S T I N Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedHONDA Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 This is a much-needed change, and nobody should be upset to the slightest except for the low-down people already abusing the license. Not to be rude,but I'd laugh at the sucker who buys Paint.net You have no idea how many people have paid for it. I searched ebay for "image editor", and there were about 6 pages of The GIMP and Paint.NET. I emailed a few of the people ripped off (most of them responded and thanked me). Those people paid $20 for it, and they gave positive remarks to the sellers! Quote "The greatest thing about the Internet is that you can write anything you want and give it a false source." ~Ezra Pound twtr | dA | tmblr | yt | fb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.