Re: [mv] WinEdit: salutory Windows tale

[Chris Jesseman <admin@discoverup.com>]

******    message to minivend-users from Chris Jesseman <admin@discoverup.com>     ******

I use jEdit- open source and good syntax hightlighting...
jedit.sourceforge.net

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 6/26/00, 7:30:41 AM, Birgitt Funk <birgitt@booktraders.com> wrote 
regarding Re: [mv] WinEdit: salutory Windows tale :


> ******    message to minivend-users from Birgitt Funk 
<birgitt@booktraders.com>     ******


> > ******    message to minivend-users from jojo@buchonline.net     ******
> >
> > On 26 Jun, Steve Fairhead wrote:
> > > ******    message to minivend-users from "Steve Fairhead"
> > <steve@sfdesign.co.uk>     ******
> > >

> [del]

> > >
> > > I found this buried deep in the legalese section of the WinEdit
> > > readme.txt:
> > >
> > >>> This SOFTWARE PRODUCT is "advertiser supported software," meaning that
> > > some or all of the costs associated with the development and
> > > distribution of this SOFTWARE PRODUCT is recuperated through the use
> > > of advertisements  displayed in the software product.  These
> > > advertisements are delivered via the Internet and will be downloaded
> > > from the servers of Aureate Media or their subcontractors, partners,
> > > or other authorized parties.  By using this software, you agree that
> > > you understand that this software will connect to the Internet
> > > UBIQUITOUSLY to download advertisement and/or to provide
> > > software updates.  You also accept responsibility for any network usage
> > > costs or any other costs incurred by using this software. <<
> > >
> > > "Ubiquitously", huh? And precisely what data flows _to_ Aureate, I
> > > wonder? (Some of the registry sections had intriguing names, and the
> > > Aureate website is, erm, interesting. See developers FAQ.)
> > >
> > > You might want to consider whether or not to allow such software
> > > anywhere near your system. I didn't enjoy it much, and only got to
> > > play with WinEdit (which seemed fine) for about 3 minutes. All a bit
> > > scary, really. It was just like a worm.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > PS: I'm with Mike. Windows sucks. I'm suddenly even more determined to
> > > become an MS-free zone.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------
> > > Steve Fairhead - SFD - Solutions by Design
> > >    www: http://www.sfdesign.co.uk http://www.sfdesign.co.uk
> > > ------------------------------------------
> >
> > WOW!
> > My WinEdit is older than this new Version and has no these
> > advertisements (Shareware). I will stay with my old WinEdit Version or I
> > will looking for another good non-mouse-clicking-Editor.
> >
> > Steve, thanks for the hint!
> >
> > Joachim

> Thanks, Steve, for posting your tale. It somewhat plays into my
> thinking about code on the web being dangerous. I haven't found
> any other reason to opt for open code exclusively other than
> making it possible for someone to understand what the code does
> on your system.

> In the case you are describing you could find some understanding
> by reading the deep-down README file.

> The policy to leave the responsability of reading and understanding
> such documents to the user of the software (comparable with giving a user
> an opt-out choice) seems to be a good argument of defense for developers
> of such software.

> But in all sincerety, you can't expect the mass of software
> users to read the tons of material necessary. How many professionals
> like you even _DO_ know what the bits are doing on their system ?

> Even in a case where the source code would be open, how many of you
> understand and read every nook and cranny of the source code ?

> Here comes my favorite advocay therefore for _documentation_, the
> only defense possible to protect yourself from abusive processes
> in the software package you are using. If source code is not open
> to be checked out by anyone and is not understood, it could
> easily be a cause for producing mass hysteria. Nobody can trust
> anything anymore reliably.

> I am not against copyrights, licenses and even patents for software
> as long as the code is open and ownership/profit of the developer and/or
> the companies who paid for the development is protected for a reasonable
> amount of time.

> I haven't understood until now, if there is a **code-based** solution to
> protect open source code's ownership and with it the profit a developer
> should be able to make with the software.

> It's again a very off-topic question, but to me it's THE question to make
> sense of the open source code business model.

> As usual I apologize for raising the question here. I search for answers
> at other places to this, but couldn't make any sense out of what is
> uttered out there.

> Birgitt

> -
> To unsubscribe from the list, DO NOT REPLY to this message.  Instead, 
send
> email with 'UNSUBSCRIBE minivend-users' in the body to 
Majordomo@minivend.com.
> Archive of past messages: http://www.minivend.com/minivend/minivend-list
-
To unsubscribe from the list, DO NOT REPLY to this message.  Instead, send
email with 'UNSUBSCRIBE minivend-users' in the body to Majordomo@minivend.com.
Archive of past messages: http://www.minivend.com/minivend/minivend-list