A very simple question for you. How often have you resold software that you legally purchased? Often enough, right? Well, if it's up to Autodesk, the company behind AutoCAD, you will no longer be allowed to resell your software. Update: As it turns out, the matter has already been resolved: Autodesk lost. A win for all of us.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2009-08-26
There is no foss equivalent to AutoCAD. None.
You said that you can't program which is true for not only the vast majority of the public but also foss advocates.
Industry specific software can be very difficult and boring to write which means there will *never* be enough foss software to replace commercial software. The incentive and talented pool of developers required simply does not exist.
Some of the most popular open source projects like OpenOffice are short on volunteer developers so it is incredibly naive to think that functional equivalents of industry specific software like AutoCAD will by produced by foss advocates.
People wanted an AutoCAD clone 10 years ago. The foss community hasn't provided one and there is no reason to believe that one will be produced in the next 10 years.
Member since:2006-08-10
I didn't even look that hard:
http://www.gcad3d.org/gCAD3D_en.htm#Home
I know nothing of AutoCAD nor this gCAD, so I cannot speak to the quality of either, but there is an alternative.
Heck, here are some more:
http://brlcad.org/
http://archimedes.incubadora.fapesp.br/portal
I understand that, and I completely agree with you. My previous comment really is from a personal user POV, so I guess it really doesn't translate well into the professional POV.
Might as well say it would be naive to have a commercial quality operating systems produced by foss advocates. But we have those, right?
Then it sounds to me as though they don't want it bad enough or they are perfectly happy with what they have now.
I don't mean to sound argumentative or come across as hostile with anyone one this, just want to keep it conversational. But I did originally say "many people" not everyone. In this case here, AutoCAD is going to be one of those programs where open source is not going to cut it for most people. But for *most* people and *most* programs, I think they could get by with a open source alternative.
Member since:2006-08-10
Member since:2005-07-07
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Developers who are FOSS advocates usually have at least the same level of education and skill as developers who prefer proprietary licences.
As for incentives, being professional engineers they would probably do it for the same incentives as the engineers preferring proprietary licences, e.g. money.
Some of the most popular open source projects like OpenOffice are short on volunteer developers so it is incredibly naive to think that functional equivalents of industry specific software like AutoCAD will by produced by foss advocates.
While CAD is certainly a different problem domain than office software, it would be suprising if people with skills for one of these are more likely to prefer FOSS licences than ones with skills for the other.
Actually I would guess that there are more developers interested in working on engineering related software than "productivity" related, independent of which kind of licences they prefer to put code under.
People wanted an AutoCAD clone 10 years ago. The foss community hasn't provided one and there is no reason to believe that one will be produced in the next 10 years.
You seem to be mixing different concepts, i.e. licencing and development model.
It is most likely impossible to do something like AutoCAD based solely on volunteer community based work, but indepenent of which kind of licence the community would choose to use.
Another company would probably do it just like AutoDesk, assuming they would be in the same situation as AutoDesk had been back when they started or enough funding to compensate for AutoDesk's head start.
Member since:2009-07-30
I think you really should presume innocence until proved guilty. At least that should be the case for most of the "western" culture countries.
Banning resale of legitimate copies just in case seems to make as much sense as saying, with this SW, you have to wear this camera equipped hat and we'll be watching to make sure you do not kick your dog or do anything else that could be illegal.
If you sold a disc and still ran your copy, you can get tried just as if you downloaded without purchase (or we could have mandatory spying SW to watch our activity, some might use their inet connection to something bad).
In other words, interests of corporations are surely venerable, but I strongly disagree with the motion that individuals should be stripped of their right without proper trial just to make sure they do not wrong the poor corporate entities (or... well, probably not too many around w/ SW, but individual copyright holders alike).
Member since:
2006-08-10
This is a good example of free (as in freedom) software and media being a better choice for many people. Since I dumped Windows about 3 years ago, I have found that I prefer the open source software over proprietary even if the open source is "not as good" as the commercial equivalent. It is worth it to me knowing that I have the liberty to do whatever I want with the software.
I can't program at all, so source code is meaningless to me. I can't stand most media personalities, so I go for free music as well. You can still get big name musicians free if they have a policy in place to let people record their concerts. (Gov't Mule/Warren Haynes is a good example) I also have found that I haven't "pirated" any software since I left Windows. If I lost a game disc before, I would download it and use my serial. Nowadays, I just download the game again with no guilt. Same thing with Windows. I used to lose that damn disc constantly and was always needing to reinstall for something stupid I had done. Now I am constantly downloading distro's because I can try out as many versions as I want.
Back to the story though, I didn't bother RTFA, but if he was selling a program he didn't use anymore, I can understand wanting to get some money out of it. I do the same thing with old video games and board games. The entire idea of licensing is stupid in my opinion.