What the MS agreement says... behing the jargon!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Then you accept that open-source licenses can and do put restrictions on redistribution and the cost of the software itself.

[RyanJ]

Then you accept that open-source licenses can and do put restrictions on redistribution and the cost of the software itself.

 

Its not really a restriction, notifying an author that your using a part of the code is not really a restriction as I see it. As for paying, shure its allowed but you don't have to... like your example you could simply download the other version and convert it yourself thus avoiding all costs but its easier to just pay for the code then to do it your self. As I said in one of my earlier posts, they can't charge you for the source but they can charge for work, bandwidth costs etc.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

As for paying, shure its allowed but you don't have to... like your example you could simply download the other version and convert it yourself thus avoiding all costs but its easier to just pay for the code then to do it your self.

Suppose they didn't offer a Linux version. They could still charge money for the Windows version.

As I said in one of my earlier posts, they can't charge you for the source but they can charge for work, bandwidth costs etc.

Under the GPL, at least.

[RyanJ]

Suppose they didn't offer a Linux version. They could still charge money for the Windows version.

 

Yea they could but not for the code its self, the bandwidth or whatever yes but the code no otherwise its not accessible to anyone and everyone. Its like people who distribute Firefox on CD with the code, you pay for the disks but not for the code.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yea they could but not for the code its self' date=' the bandwidth or whatever yes but the code no otherwise its not accessible to anyone and everyone. Its like people who distribute Firefox on CD with the code, you pay for the disks but not for the code.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones[/quote']

The GPL only restricts the charges on distribution for the source code itself, and not the program. I could charge people $50 for giving them a copy of a FF CD (as Firefox is now relicensed under the GPL) along with a note explaining how to get the source code for free.

[RyanJ]

The GPL only restricts the charges on distribution for the source code itself, and not the program. I could charge people $50 for giving them a copy of a FF CD (as Firefox is now relicensed under the GPL) along with a note explaining how to get the source code for free.

 

... So whats the problem? the source is still free? My point exactly.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

My original post said "You may freely redistribute this software, with proper credit given to the original author" and nothing about the source code.

[RyanJ]

Yes I know you did and I agreed with you :S I simply replied to drochaid to point out what OS was

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And you were wrong, because "open source" has no connotation on what the software costs to download at all (only the source code), contrary to what you said. That is the point drochaid and I have been making.

[drochaid]

And you were wrong, because "open source" has no connotation on what the software costs to download at all (only the source code), contrary to what you said. That is the point drochaid and I have been making.

Precisely my point.

[RyanJ]

And you were wrong, because "open source" has no connotation on what the software costs to download at all (only the source code), contrary to what you said. That is the point drochaid and I have been making.

 

I was talking abut the source code and always have been talking about the source code.

 

I'm just going to give up trying to explain what I am saying and hit my head against the wall instead.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How could your argument be based on source code when what I said, and drochaid disputed (and you disputed in turn) was "You may freely redistribute this software, with proper credit given to the original author"? I didn't say "source code," and the point of my post was to say "it would be nice if we had that sort of rights with the software," not just the source code.

[drochaid]

How could your argument be based on source code when what I said, and drochaid disputed (and you disputed in turn) was "You may freely redistribute this software, with proper credit given to the original author"? I didn't say "source code," and the point of my post was to say "it would be nice if we had that sort of rights with the software," not just the source code.

Indeed, and a quote from my original response to Ryanj claiming open source did that .. "It also has no connotation on the software actually being available."

 

Clearly no mention of code there either.