Did SourceForge start re-integrating adware into their downloads again?
-
-
@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.
