Did SourceForge start re-integrating adware into their downloads again?
-
@Rob-Dunn said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
One reason I avoid CNet/Download.com. I use Ninite for everything like that nowadays.
Yes, I do like Ninite for this, but on my work PC, that's a no-no.
Then Chocolately it is.
-
@IRJ said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
It's a way for projects to generate income.
I find it annoying, but acceptable for freeware to bundle other programs. I've seen it on software so much that I am trained to always do custom installs and EXPECT them to try to sneak something in. Just be careful when going through the typical next, next, next procedure.
Freeware is one thing, but Open Source, I dunno. Seems like the whole 'making profit' by shady methods is kind of counter to the whole Open Source movement in general. If you want to promote sharing and code maturity via the collective, making money from some profit-centered and possibly harmful utility really accomplishes only the opposite desired effect, IMHO.
-
@Rob-Dunn said:
@IRJ said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
It's a way for projects to generate income.
I find it annoying, but acceptable for freeware to bundle other programs. I've seen it on software so much that I am trained to always do custom installs and EXPECT them to try to sneak something in. Just be careful when going through the typical next, next, next procedure.
Freeware is one thing, but Open Source, I dunno. Seems like the whole 'making profit' by shady methods is kind of counter to the whole Open Source movement in general. If you want to promote sharing and code maturity via the collective, making money from some profit-centered and possibly harmful utility really accomplishes only the opposite desired effect, IMHO.
Not really. Open source is purely about the accessibility to the source. How, why or if people make profit is really unrelated. Open source and free don't have any necessary reason to go together. Shady business or money making rarely goes directly with any social movement, but beyond that that the source is open doesn't really play in to the money making aspect. If anything, it makes it easier as the open source movement isn't concerned with people making money from what they have made, with most licenses.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Rob-Dunn said:
@IRJ said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
It's a way for projects to generate income.
I find it annoying, but acceptable for freeware to bundle other programs. I've seen it on software so much that I am trained to always do custom installs and EXPECT them to try to sneak something in. Just be careful when going through the typical next, next, next procedure.
Freeware is one thing, but Open Source, I dunno. Seems like the whole 'making profit' by shady methods is kind of counter to the whole Open Source movement in general. If you want to promote sharing and code maturity via the collective, making money from some profit-centered and possibly harmful utility really accomplishes only the opposite desired effect, IMHO.
Not really. Open source is purely about the accessibility to the source. How, why or if people make profit is really unrelated. Open source and free don't have any necessary reason to go together. Shady business or money making rarely goes directly with any social movement, but beyond that that the source is open doesn't really play in to the money making aspect. If anything, it makes it easier as the open source movement isn't concerned with people making money from what they have made, with most licenses.
Exactly. Open source means the code is available to anyone, and things like the GNU GPL protect Open source rights as the code changes over time and goes from one person's hands to another. Someone may have something open-source they give out for free. Someone is completely allowed to come along, make changes to it and then package it and sell it. However, they must maintain the code as open-source (assuming it's licensed with CC or GNU GPL or even public domain). However, they must make the source available. and allow others to do what they want with it. Also, they often have to show the changes they made from the original code or at least the code they received.
-
...to preserve the original author's integrity, as it were.
-
I encourage everyone in IT to watch the "Revolution OS" movie at some point in their careers. Very important documentary. Some HUGE people are in it too!
-
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
However, they must maintain the code as open-source (assuming it's licensed with CC or GNU GPL or even public domain).
PD doesn't require you to do anything. I didn't know that CC had a code license. BSD does not require that the code continue to be open either.
-
No no. I have no problem with the source code authors making money, it's the shady tag-alongs that I have a beef with. It's a matter of principle. If I know my particular project is being sent along with a bunch of adware-laden toolbars and potentially malicious apps, what contribution am I really making?
If it were me, I'd pull any and all of my projects from any websites that package my apps with that shit.
-
@Rob-Dunn said:
No no. I have no problem with the source code authors making money, it's the shady tag-alongs that I have a beef with. It's a matter of principle. If I know my particular project is being sent along with a bunch of adware-laden toolbars and potentially malicious apps, what contribution am I really making?
I think that one should be on Source Forge rather than the FOSS Projects. It's likely because Adware is the only thing willing to pay.
-
@thecreativeone91
That I'm sure of. Like it was stated above, there's enough non-technical users downloading it to make it worth their (Adware companies) while, but your application loses credence with the technical crowd as soon as one PC is infected with something that was completely out of your control as a project submitter.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
However, they must maintain the code as open-source (assuming it's licensed with CC or GNU GPL or even public domain).
PD doesn't require you to do anything. I didn't know that CC had a code license. BSD does not require that the code continue to be open either.
No I know with Public Domain you can do whatever you want and claim it as your own. That was a bad use of that. I will admit that. But the GNU GPL is the primary example. I thought CC had one for code but it's possible that's just for audio. I need to go back and do a refresher on a lot of this...
-
@Rob-Dunn said:
@thecreativeone91
That I'm sure of. Like it was stated above, there's enough non-technical users downloading it to make it worth their (Adware companies) while, but your application loses credence with the technical crowd as soon as one PC is infected with something that was completely out of your control as a project submitter.
That's completely true. Once your official source is a game of "trickware", let's call it, it is hard to take you seriously.
-
@Rob-Dunn said:
No no. I have no problem with the source code authors making money, it's the shady tag-alongs that I have a beef with. It's a matter of principle. If I know my particular project is being sent along with a bunch of adware-laden toolbars and potentially malicious apps, what contribution am I really making?
If it were me, I'd pull any and all of my projects from any websites that package my apps with that shit.
Depending on the licensing, they might not have a choice.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
I never liked the Revolution OS. They try to paint MS as the bad guy because they wanted to get the money they were suppose to be paid for BASIC and stop piracy. They should be paid for their software.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
I never liked the Revolution OS. They try to paint MS as the bad guy because they wanted to get the money they were suppose to be paid for BASIC and stop piracy. They should be paid for their software.
There is no doubt the guys in the video are fanatics. However, they are also some incredibly important people in the history of IT. I love learning the history, and I take the dogma with a grain of salt.
