software in the Free Tools Thread

[chronodekar]

What bothers me is that TestDriven.NET is listed in the free tools thread. I feel it should not be there and have already stated why I think so, especially since it's not actually free.
That discussion began here,
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2244626&enterthread=y

Now according to Markbnj's reply here, (look near bottom of page)
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...erthread=y&STARTPAGE=2

he feel that,

the point of this thread is to identify resources that individuals can grab and use

I think that IS stated in the thread somewhere, but I disagree. When I see the title "FREE", what comes to my mind is the GNU "Free". To quote them,

To understand the concept, you should think of ?free? as in ?free speech?, not as in ?free beer?.

So I strongly feel that software you cannot use in a commercial environment should NOT be listed there. Or at the very least, put them in another section.

By this I do NOT mean to list only GNU-based or Open Source Software here. I don't have any opinion about source code. I just mean that anything listed should be all-right to use in an office environment. Like ConTEXT for instance. I use that in my office occasionally. Or the free version of Hex Editor Neo. (I know a lot of guys who use it in an office.)

I don't have the final say in this matter, that honor belongs to Markbnj. He mentions that he is interested in a discussion on it. So, I opened up this thread for that very purpose. ( I really do NOT want to pollute the "Official Free Tools Thread" with this. It has some VERY informative posts and I don't want to soil that.)

I'm also starting a poll on the matter. If your choice is "OTHER" please post the suggestion here.


I don't have Markbnj's permission to start this up (as of this writing), so if he disagrees with my approach I'll end up deleting this post (and the poll). So, wait till he gives the OK, otherwise this will end up in a pointless discussion.

 

[Markbnj]

Actually, I will leave the final decision up to the members. I think a good many of them are students and independent developers, as well as professionals working in a structured environment. It's for that reason that I think "personal editions" are relevant and a proper inclusion on the list. When I initially authored the list I did not intend for the software on it to meet GNU licensing guidelines. I think that would be a more narrowly focused list. I also don't share, and never have, Stallman's notion that software is like air. He is free to treat his software like air, if he chooses, and fortunately for a lot of us who use GNU foundation tools he and a lot of others have chosen to do so. But that doesn't invalidate other models.

 

[CycloWizard]

Keep them or list them separately? I suppose the simplest thing to do is to put an asterisk or note next to the ones with restrictions on usage.

 

[chronodekar]

Markbnj, I think you miss my point. I also agree that we do NOT want the software to meet GNU guidelines. That would lead to more trouble than it's worth.

What I dislike about some of the software listed (especially TestDriven.NET) is the fact that it can't be used in an office-environment. BUT, like you suggest, on that basis, it's not fair to alienate the needs of students and independent developers.

I like CycloWizard's idea. Putting an asterisk (*) next to the software that has licensing issues would address my complaint too. All I really want to know, is what can I run in an office without worrying about legal red tape. What do you think ?

Any other suggestions guys ?

 

[degibson]

I agree with CycloWizard: Asterisks.

 

[Crusty]

It's not marbnj's job to prevent people from using software they don't have a license to legally use. If a piece of software is free for some developers to use and not free for others then it should be up to the developer to figure that out. I don't think markbnj had planned on spending hours a week trying to maintain several different lists of software just please a very tiny portion of the people using the lists, it's far easier and far simpler to have one big list broken down like it currently is. Having more details about the software, like restrictions on the licensing, would be great to put on there, but I wouldn't expect markbnj to do all that work .

 

[chronodekar]

You have a point there Crusty. It's a VERY tedious job to maintain all those links. But why not just update the status of the different projects as the forum members find out? We could just inform markbnj then. And it would a lot less hassle for him too. (I think)

If you get down to it, we can make a thousand classifications about software. One of the BIG advantages of that list is that it's SIMPLE. We need to keep it that way.

One of the ways I find it simple is that I have a look, if I find something interesting, I install it. The issue that came up for me in this scenario, is that I cannot blindly try out something in my office.

I'm dropping my earlier suggestion. A separate list is just too much trouble. And classifying it would be a nightmare. Instead, I want to push for the suggestion made by CycloWizard, Asterisks.

If markbnj wants, I can help filter out that software that meets that criteria. That way he won't need to do any major changes to the list. Just add a * next to some of the titles and a comment-line somewhere at the top saying something like, "*These software cannot be used for free in a commercial environment."

What do say guys?

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: chronodekar
You have a point there Crusty. It's a VERY tedious job to maintain all those links. But why not just update the status of the different projects as the forum members find out? We could just inform markbnj then. And it would a lot less hassle for him too. (I think)

If you get down to it, we can make a thousand classifications about software. One of the BIG advantages of that list is that it's SIMPLE. We need to keep it that way.

One of the ways I find it simple is that I have a look, if I find something interesting, I install it. The issue that came up for me in this scenario, is that I cannot blindly try out something in my office.

I'm dropping my earlier suggestion. A separate list is just too much trouble. And classifying it would be a nightmare. Instead, I want to push for the suggestion made by CycloWizard, Asterisks.

If markbnj wants, I can help filter out that software that meets that criteria. That way he won't need to do any major changes to the list. Just add a * next to some of the titles and a comment-line somewhere at the top saying something like, "*These software cannot be used for free in a commercial environment."

What do say guys?

That's precisely my point, you shouldn't be installing software willy nilly in a business environment until after you determine whether or not you have a license to use it. Making a note that the software is not 100% free is a great idea, but in the end it's still up to the person installing the software to make the decision to go forward or not.

 

[Markbnj]

I'll make an effort to go through the list and note which packages are not completely free in all situations. However I will leave it to members to click through and find out what the restrictions actually are.

 

[chronodekar]

Like I said, I'm willing to help in anyway I can Markbnj. I can help compile a list of what completely free/not free. Or is there anything else you would need assistance in ?

Crusty,

you shouldn't be installing software willy nilly in a business environment

I agree 100%. But if some of us KNOW what to look for then we may as update the list accordingly.

And about this Markbnj,

However I will leave it to members to click through and find out what the restrictions actually are.

It is a perfectly reasonable demand to make from anyone who uses the list.

 

[tfinch2]

Leave it as is and do your own leg work.

 

[imported_Dhaval00]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Leave it as is and do your own leg work.

Ditto. The list is only going to grow and you can't expect to spoon-feed everyone on the forums. At the same time, if something is not free any more, simply point it out in the thread... am sure Mark wouldn't mind updating the list at that point.

 

[Onund]

Originally posted by: Dhaval00

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Leave it as is and do your own leg work.

Ditto. The list is only going to grow and you can't expect to spoon-feed everyone on the forums. At the same time, if something is not free any more, simply point it out in the thread... am sure Mark wouldn't mind updating the list at that point.

why would it be so hard to also point out in the thread that something might not be free for commercial use? All Mark would have to do is put a * next to the software title (assuming he agrees to the task).

Sure people could do their own leg work but lets say someone is looking for revision control software for work, I count 7 options in the list. If a person finds that certain options require pay licenses for office use wouldn't it be beneficial to the community if they come back and post a quick heads up? Without putting any details on the limitations but just putting a marking there to tell the user that there may be limitations it's still on the person to dig up the appropriate information. I would appreciate that if I were looking for software for work. I don't think that's spoon-feeding, I call that community sharing.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: Onund

Originally posted by: Dhaval00

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Leave it as is and do your own leg work.

Ditto. The list is only going to grow and you can't expect to spoon-feed everyone on the forums. At the same time, if something is not free any more, simply point it out in the thread... am sure Mark wouldn't mind updating the list at that point.

why would it be so hard to also point out in the thread that something might not be free for commercial use? All Mark would have to do is put a * next to the software title (assuming he agrees to the task).

Sure people could do their own leg work but lets say someone is looking for revision control software for work, I count 7 options in the list. If a person finds that certain options require pay licenses for office use wouldn't it be beneficial to the community if they come back and post a quick heads up? Without putting any details on the limitations but just putting a marking there to tell the user that there may be limitations it's still on the person to dig up the appropriate information. I would appreciate that if I were looking for software for work. I don't think that's spoon-feeding, I call that community sharing.

Most people agree on that, people are responding the OP where it was so adamantly stated that software that is only free for personal use should not be included in the list... which is a bit extreme and chronodekar agreed later on that just making a note of it would be appropriate.

Asking someone to constantly browse the software's sites to check for license changes is a huge undertaking, and IMO if someone was doing that it would be similar to spoon feeding people. This is the real world and people need to be able to think for themselves, especially software developers/engineers.

 

[Onund]

Originally posted by: Crusty
Most people agree on that, people are responding the OP where it was so adamantly stated that software that is only free for personal use should not be included in the list... which is a bit extreme and chronodekar agreed later on that just making a note of it would be appropriate.

Asking someone to constantly browse the software's sites to check for license changes is a huge undertaking, and IMO if someone was doing that it would be similar to spoon feeding people. This is the real world and people need to be able to think for themselves, especially software developers/engineers.

Ok, maybe I'm confused because the post I replied to came 2 days after the OP.

 

[Nothinman]

You should be reviewing the licenses for any piece of software before you use it so what's the big deal?

 

[nordloewelabs]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Leave it as is and do your own leg work.

agreed. i never preemptively assume a piece of freeware is also free in a commercial environment. that would be dumb. it's up to each user to find out the details on licensing.

@Markbnj: you've done a great job with the thread! leave it as it is.

 

[DaveSimmons]

* : maybe we need 2, "!" and "$" :

! - GPL alert, all your new code belongs to us
We need to keep our source closed at work, so when I download code samples or libraries I have to check the license terms anyway to see if it's GPL-infected instead of just LGPL or other less restrictive licensing.

$ - cash monies for work use
Tools, it doesn't bother me to have to check whether it's only free for home use since we have a decent tools budget at work. If ti's useful enough and the price is reasonable we'll buy it.

It's not a big deal for me either way.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Crusty
It's not marbnj's job to prevent people from using software they don't have a license to legally use. If a piece of software is free for some developers to use and not free for others then it should be up to the developer to figure that out. I don't think markbnj had planned on spending hours a week trying to maintain several different lists of software just please a very tiny portion of the people using the lists, it's far easier and far simpler to have one big list broken down like it currently is. Having more details about the software, like restrictions on the licensing, would be great to put on there, but I wouldn't expect markbnj to do all that work .

I agree. Keep free-for-personal-use software up, or at least don't remove it. You can make a note on the side or something whether it's safe for corporate use.

chronodekar, I think you would get more results if you had sounded less forceful and one-sided in your OP, but I agree with the idea that free-for-corporate-use software could be noted somewhere.