zisworg Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Hi all, I have just discovered that a very good french office suite uses Paint.Net as its picture editor: OFFICE One v7.x. Is that official? Legally distributed? The official link: http://oone.issendis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=31 (or here for the OEM licence) The site screenshot in attachement. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephan Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I believe its not... RESPONSIBILITY: Except contrary mention, the rights of ownership intellectual on the documents contained in the site and each element created for this site are the exclusive property of the company ISSENDIS (translated to English with babelfish...) it claims PDN for itself, and probably sells this, even though i can't find it anywhere. The Other stuff is OpenOffice.org. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Brown Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Contact RB. Edit: And I wouldn't be supriesed if the others are pirated as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew D Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I'm starting to think using the MIT lisence for PDN is a bad idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Brown Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I'm starting to think using the MIT lisence for PDN is a bad idea... Why not just make it freeware with the exeption that you are allowed to modify the source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew D Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I'm starting to think using the MIT lisence for PDN is a bad idea... Why not just make it freeware with the exeption that you aren't allowed to modify the source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Brown Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I'm starting to think using the MIT lisence for PDN is a bad idea... Why not just make it freeware with the exeption that you aren't allowed to modify the source? Good idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Pi Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 While I agree that ripping off open source projects is pretty low, I disagree with closing the source. What Rick did with the installer/resources* is sufficient. [*:3ma162yt]It wouldn't be open source, even if source code is provided.[*:3ma162yt]Wouldn't allow porting to other platforms, like mono on linux/mac.[*:3ma162yt]Rick stated somewhere that he gave the source so people could learn from it and use it. *If they're using an older version of PDN without the license changes, they can legally copy and sell the resources. The new resources license Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Brown Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 If Rick had wanted it to be fully open-source he would have licensed it under GPL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Pi Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 The MIT license is also open source. (In fact, it's even more permissive than the GPL.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Brown Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 The MIT license is also open source. (In fact, it's even more permissive than the GPL.) Nothing is more permissive than GPL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew D Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 The MIT license is also open source. (In fact, it's even more permissive than the GPL.) Nothing is more permissive than GPL. MIT is, as MIT allows you to edit the source code, while the GPL dosen't allow you to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Brown Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 MIT is, as MIT allows you to edit the source code, while the GPL dosen't allow you to. GPL does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Pi Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Source code licensed under the MIT license can be used for anything, including sale and use in proprietary applications. GPL is copyleft, meaning that derivative works must be released under a compatible license. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl-violations.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Brown Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Well we don't want the pdn source to be used in commercial applications. PDN should have a custom license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I actually gave them permission to do this about 2 years ago -- it was completely within the license rights. However, they are still distributing version 2.72 and I recently asked them to cease doing this. I still get crash logs for "OFFICE One v7 - Paint.NET v2.72". It's rather obnoxious. 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...
Andrew D Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I actually gave them permission to do this about 2 years ago -- it was completely within the license rights. However, they are still distributing version 2.72 and I recently asked them to cease doing this. I still get crash logs for "OFFICE One v7 - Paint.NET v2.72". It's rather obnoxious. Mabye cancel the rights of them using it until they update it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachuco Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 mentioned here in Rick's Blog, under #3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncfan51 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Rick had already posted about this ripoff in his blog a few months ago. EDIT: Darn! Beaten again! +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ I am a disco dancer. +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Brown Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I don't understand why he gave them permission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachuco Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I don't understand why he gave them permission. he did not give them permission. they downloaded the source code and claimed it as their own. edit: thank you for correcting me pyrochild, I missed that bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyrochild Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I don't understand why he gave them permission. he did not give them permission. they downloaded the source code and claimed it as their own. I actually gave them permission to do this about 2 years ago -- it was completely within the license rights. However, they are still distributing version 2.72 and I recently asked them to cease doing this. I still get crash logs for "OFFICE One v7 - Paint.NET v2.72". It's rather obnoxious. ambigram signature by Kemaru [i write plugins and stuff] If you like a post, upvote it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zisworg Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 I actually gave them permission to do this about 2 years ago -- it was completely within the license rights. However, they are still distributing version 2.72 and I recently asked them to cease doing this. I still get crash logs for "OFFICE One v7 - Paint.NET v2.72". It's rather obnoxious. Ok, I recognize that it is rather deplorable. The MIT license is also open source. (In fact, it's even more permissive than the GPL.) Nothing is more permissive than GPL. Wrong: the LGPL is :wink: independently of their infringement, it's a sure sign of the PdN notoriety! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyrochild Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 The MIT license is also open source. (In fact, it's even more permissive than the GPL.) Nothing is more permissive than GPL. Have you even read both of those licenses? MIT is far more permissive. ambigram signature by Kemaru [i write plugins and stuff] If you like a post, upvote it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.atwell Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 sabrown100, please stop posting in questions about copyright law, as you obviously don't know very much about it. :-) 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...
Recommended Posts