License

[harakiri]

I noticed that the installer has a clear warning on earning revenue via redistribution, by asking users to get a refund if the software had been bought from a third-party. If the license is solely MIT with just the following two 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 "resource assets" 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 "resource assets" 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 the "resource assets" for the sole purpose of providing a translation to a language other than English. Some "resource assets" 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").

then how can that be appropriate?

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.

If you are telling me this (indirectly forbidding and/or discouraging an act which is allowed in the clause) is MIT, then the MIT license must have a mistake somewhere - let alone be GPL-compliant. Fortunately (or unfortunately), MIT is GPL-compliant and has existed long before this application. Thus, I urge the team to revise the message and/or the license itself.

[Rick Brewster]

You're misunderstanding the intent of the warning in the installer. There's nothing wrong with someone selling a copy of Paint.NET, you are correct. What we are trying to prevent is people purchasing Paint.NET from, say, an eBay auction and then unwittingly finding out that it is actually free software, and then feeling stupid at themself or mad at the seller or even us.

You have every right to sell it a copy of Paint.NET on eBay, but then again the people who purchase it from you also have every right to know that they could've obtained it completely for free.

[Individualized]

The start of my extreme wealth :shock:

[david.atwell]

The start of my extreme wealth :shock:

Heh. Ask Michael J. Hardy and A.A. Fussy how wealthy they are. :-)