29 replies to this topic

[kart3]

So parted magic now asks for small donation to download iso. 5$

http://partedmagic.c...hp?id=downloads

but anyone know if this is 5$ for every build or only one time and future build are also included?

and since it is gpl, it is legal to share it everywhere.

maybe someone already did?

 

[DavidB]

Yes, I noticed that too. That's why I use gparted now.

[Blackcrack]

apparently has the programmer planned much earlier to make this, because his wife has lost (?) her work and

then has he say, it's not possible for make it further as free of charge work carry on it .. like i have see it in the german Pro-Linux.de..

there was an article about... I had think me, why get he it not to the community and let it further developing under gpl from an Community ?

I bet, he has planed this long time already. In order to earn that money later ... but it's just a thought on my part ..

 

best regards

Blacky

[kart3]

Ok, but since it is GPL, if someone will download it (after pp donation), can share it here?

[Brito]

Ok, but since it is GPL, if someone will download it (after pp donation), can share it here?

 

Yes. Potentially the software could be shared here (or anywhere else for that matter). The question is, should we share it here?

 

Personally, regardless of the license allow to share his work I would still not see this action as correct. Somehow I don't see fairness if the author is going through financial troubles and we (as community) don't help him out a bit. It would be great if he could find a sponsor that would help to keep the software completely free for users.

 

[erwan.l]

The web page is rather odd now : it says "Parted Magic is free software" but you need to click on the "buy now" button

 

Can a linux distro containing other free source software turn into a "buy now" version?

 

Regards,

Erwan

[Wonko the Sane]

The issue (as often is) is between "free as in freedom" and in "free as in free beer".

"Free software" means "free as in freedom" and not necessarily "free as in free beer", i.e. you can make people pay to have "free software",

Some notes (and relevant links) were posted here:

http://www.msfn.org/...e-se/?p=1054246

 

What jaclaz might not say (but that the Wonko the Sane character actually can alright ) is that the current "fee per download licensing model" seems like very foolish. 

 

 

With a new version every few weeks, you are likely to pay some US$ 50+/year, which is definitely well over the current price of *any* comparable Commercial partitioning tool, and of course the largest part of the people will migrate too gparted (or to other smallish Linux distro's).

 

With all due respect to Patrick Verner parted magic has not IMHO such outstanding features/innovative programs/whatever that sets it in "class by itself" when compared to a number of other smallish distro's (and BTW lately has grown in size considerably).

 

BTW, since UNLIKE most Commercial licenses "free software" means that the software is redistributable (and it is so legally and actually compulsory to not put any limit to such redistributability) I personally doubt that all the people on the 'net will oblige to the moral binding Nuno evidences.

 

My crystal ball, though as always fuzzy and foggy , is telling me that it won't work well "as is" in the long stretch.

 

Wonko

[Brito]

Can a linux distro containing other free source software turn into a "buy now" version?

 

I see Red Hat as such example. It *is* possible to get their distro, just one heck of a complicated process with many "client only" kind of pages.

 

Basically, with Red Hat you sign a subscription contract for their services, not for the software. However, the contract specifies that you cannot distribute their Linux distribution to other parties that do not hold a Red Hat contract as well.

 

This is all perfectly legal. Anyone here can sign a contract saying that they can only access http://reboot.pro while using a Windows desktop. Silly? Perhaps. In business this kind of things are quite normal.

 

 

I personally doubt that all the people on the 'net will oblige to the moral binding Nuno evidences.

 

I agree with you. What I mean is that from my side, I will not host Parted Magic here. Anyone else is free to do as they desire.

 

From my perspective, Windows PE comes with nifty support for resizing partitions. When installing a Linux distro, I also use the partition resizer included with the distro. No troubles with them, no need (for me) to use Parted Magic.

 

[Wonko the Sane]

However, the contract specifies that you cannot distribute their Linux distribution to other parties that do not hold a Red Hat contract as well.

Link to the contract where that is stated?

 

Wonko

[Blackcrack]

Yes. Potentially the software could be shared here (or anywhere else for that matter). The question is, should we share it here?

 

Personally, regardless of the license allow to share his work I would still not see this action as correct. Somehow I don't see fairness if the author is going through financial troubles and we (as community) don't help him out a bit. It would be great if he could find a sponsor that would help to keep the software completely free for users.

 

 

but.. if have he planed planned/scheduled  this.. it is not correct to the community because, if he know to use this programm for making money..

and as his age-provision or making money later .. and this on GPL, there it is gives other possibles .. and not.. like this way how he does ..

 

best regards

Blacky

[pscEx]

Is it a crime to try to earn money?

Is it a crime to develop something, and tell the world:

"When you want to have the most sophisticated version, you must are invited to pay"

 

The world currently is crazy.

There are developers which spend a lot of their time to develop something which can be used by many people, even by companies which can save money by using the developed software.

 

And what is the reality: Every user demands that the benefits he gets, is "free beer".

 

IMO who gets, sometimes also should agree to give.

 

Peter

[Blackcrack]

not crime, you understand it wrong.. but maby it was planned from him ..

 

best regards

Blacky

[pscEx]

It is long time ago, but when I started my studies at RWTH Aachen, I planned to earn money, using the paper I got finally.

 

Peter

[Blackcrack]

trotzdem isses nich gut, wenn man sowas vorplant, normaler weise sollte jemand anders sowas nun zusammenbauen..

Sowas mit dem hintergedanken auf zu bauen, daß er nachher die leute einer opensourcecommunity in die kommzerialität ziehen will um sein leben dann zahlen zu lassen, dann sollte er das lieber gleich als kommerzielles programm auf ziehen und nicht später das unter einem anderen mäntelchen aufziehen wollen, das ist nach meiner auffassung lang geplanter betrug .. denn, er hat andere leute unentgeltlich für sich mit arbeiten lassen..

 

wenn du willst, kannst du das gern übersetzen, wenn wie du warscheinlich gemerkt hat, bin ich nicht wirklich gut in english ..

 

schönen abend noch

 

(sorry for the german, but my english is not really good ..)

[DavidB]

As a computer programmer I agree with pscEx.
As a user, I agree with Blackcrack.
Because I am both, for me the truth is somewhere in between.
A developer should get money for his/her work, yes, but not in any conditions.
For example it would be wrong if I would suddenly decide to allow the use of my "Virtual Machine USB Boot" only after a few dollars/euro payment. The correct way would be to notify the users from the start that they should pay.
Unfortunately, in the real world, most developers do this. And what they do it's not illegal, it's just "business". I don't agree with it, but there isn't much I can do. Except using another application. Which I did...

[Blackcrack]

you should imagine, for wat it is give Open Source, why it is build up Open Source, why has develope R.Stallman

the GPL ? In this sight should you think about an piece of Open Source software .. and.. pay the Software ?

Maybe the Support.. okey, but not the Software who be under gpl ..... you understand ?

 

best regards

Blacky

[Brito]

Link to the contract where that is stated?

 

Wonko

 

This should be one adopted for most agreements around Europe: http://www.redhat.co...an_20120615.pdf

 

To save you some time, look specifically on section 1.2 of Appendix 1 around page 14.

[Blackcrack]

if they using GPL-Software should be there an verification if it is GPL- Conform, because, RH using GPL Software

it is give now 3 different GPL but both be using in an Distribution ..

 

To the question for distribute die CD .. yes, imo total legitimate if anyone become or have the CD

and get out there in Nuno's forum ..

And if anyone spend him, the Founder a few toads, why not if he want get an bit support for his own plan okey, why not ..

But they must not come afterwards and say he had paid for a GPL software ..

Maybe for the Support and compilation, but not for the Software ..

 

best regards

Blacky

[kart3]

Ok, so if someone would share it here, will he be flamed?

it will be legal, but is it really unfair?

 

also:

anyone bought it already?

is there one time pay for all coming in future versions or one per one, current only version?

[Blackcrack]

5$*500 Persons = 2500$ for 1 Person or a family ..  humm..

1$*500Persons = Stream and hardware payed ..

and if you make it with Advertising .. no one need to pay or some who let advertising .. you see ..

 

so should be legal if be hostet here the actually iso .. (and no flame should come)

best regards

Blacky

[erwan.l]

I personally have some doubts around the ability to make a living out of this.

Indeed, there are quite some many free (live iso) alternatives next to parted magic.

Plus, is there anything preventing a fork? like a "libre parted magic" (to be compared to openoffice -> libreoffice).

 

Some alternatives today (that nice would need to be extended) :

 

-gparted : the same as in parted magic

-clonezilla : lack of GUI makes it a bit "hardcore", still fast and reliable

-redobackup : nice and very simple GUI

-partition home wizard home edition : nice sophisticated enough GUI

-macrium reflect free : nice sophisticated enough GUI

-About winpe, can it be distributed? As it could also make some nice live iso's around partitioning.

 

/Erwan

[Brito]

In this sight should you think about an piece of Open Source software .. and.. pay the Software ?

 

Yep. I've seen some places charging as much as 4 000 Euros for other people to access their open source software. In the case that I refer, you are not paying for the GPL software, you are paying for the "handling fee" and you need to sign a contract forbidding you of sharing it with others.

 

 

Ok, so if someone would share it here, will he be flamed?
it will be legal, but is it really unfair?

 

Don't worry, everyone gets flamed more or less equally around reboot. Just ask Wonko for some help in case you feel left out, he typically starts his day with a visit to reboot equipped with his flame thrower.

 

It *should* be legal to share here Parted Magic. Attention that I did not analyzed the contents of the distribution and don't know if it contains non-redistributable software inside. From the forum administration perspective it is just safer not to permit it being hosted/shared here. Since plenty of alternatives exist, this won't be the end of the world..

 

 

-About winpe, can it be distributed? As it could also make some nice live iso's around partitioning.

 

Can only be distributed with a permission from Microsoft. Some places do have this permission and they charge some 20 USD (if I remember correctly) for each ready-made ISO.

 

Of course that my (biased) option is recommending the new winbuilder because it creates the ISO automatically with a single step.

[paraglider]

MS stop redistribution of built PE. Instead they forced companies like Paragon to supply a builder application which builds the PE.

[Brito]

MS stop redistribution of built PE. Instead they forced companies like Paragon to supply a builder application which builds the PE.

 

It is is only partially correct my friend. 

 

It is true that MS stops companies from distributing their software permission and it is also know the cases of allowing companies to sell Windows PE in return of a commission for each sale. See for example Winternals (before being acquired) or NeoSmart with their ready-made boot disks: https://neosmart.net/EasyRE/

[Wonko the Sane]

This should be one adopted for most agreements around Europe: http://www.redhat.co...an_20120615.pdf

 

To save you some time, look specifically on section 1.2 of Appendix 1 around page 14.

Naah.

 

Distributing the
Software or any portion of the Subscription Services to a third
party or using any of the Subscription Services for the benefit
of a third party is a material breach of the Agreement even
though the open source licenses applicable to individual
software packages may give you the right to distribute those
packages (and this Appendix is not intended to interfere with
your rights under those individual licenses). The foregoing
sentence is not intended to limit your internal use of the
Software to run a web site and/or to offer your own software
as a service, provided such a web site or service (a) does not
include a distribution of the Software or Subscription Services
and ( provides a material value added application or service
other than the Software and/or Subscription Services.

 

 

Any unauthorized use of the Subscription
Services is a material breach of the Agreement, such as (a)
only purchasing or renewing Subscription Services based on
some, but not all, of the total number of Units of Software or
other Red Hat Product that you deploy, install, use or
execute, ( providing Software Access or Software
Maintenance (each defined below) to third parties, © using
Software Access, Software Maintenance, Production Support
and/or Development Support (each defined below) to provide
support to third parties, (d) using Subscription Services in
connection with any redistribution of Software and/or (e)
using Subscription Services to support or maintain any non-
Red Hat Software products without purchasing Subscription
Services for each instance of such non-Red Hat Product for
which you use Subscription Services. For the purposes of this
paragraph (for example, in calculating the total number of

Units of Software), Software would include versions or copies
that have the Red Hat trademark(s) and/or logo file(s)
removed. The licenses that are applicable to the individual
open source software packages are perpetual (subject to
your compliance with their terms), but the other benefits of a
Software Subscription will expire if not renewed.

 

 

Allow me (yet again something that jaclaz would not do , but that Wonko the Sane actually can ) to doubt a little about the agreement with NeoSmart.

 

Wonko