Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Finding Freeware Listing Sites?

Posted by Cliff on from the finding-the-nearest-mountaintop dept.

A not-so Anonymous Coward asks: "CNET's download.com has become a 'pay to list' service, so it doesn't make sense to list freeware there, anymore. What are the best alternatives? Also, you cannot post linux software there anymore for any price: 'Note: We are no longer accepting any new submissions for Linux, and we will be discontinuing all coverage of Linux on our download sites shortly.' What is the hard working but generous coder supposed to do?"

5 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. No Linux? What the...... by Asprin · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Discontinuing all Linux support? Did I miss something or did sombody BUY Cnet this week?

    Oh, I see the problem now. Take a look at this snippet from the new upload.com web page:

    Welcome to the new Upload.com! Submitting your software product through Upload.com gets you listed in CNET Networks' download library, which delivers 2.5 million downloads per day. The basic processing fee is $79 to list your product in Download.com, ZDNet Downloads, and MSN Downloads.

    Does anyone know who owns Cnet?



    (Yeah, probably a troll, but not really. I'm genuine about the "who owns them" question because it just seems like an odd choice to make, you know, like Netscape announcing they're laying off 50 Netscape developers a couple of weeks after signing the MS agreement that gives them IE for seven years. It's just odd, you know?)

    --
    "Lawyers are for sucks."
    - Doug McKenzie
  2. Re:Sourceforge and Freshmeat might help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Read the TOS for sourceforge sometime. Any code you submit via CVS may be used by sourceforge and affiliates (ie all of VA Linux incuding slashdot) under any license they desire.


    So while you may use their cvs for a GPL project, va linux can make a proprietary fork of it at anytime, or sell the rights to use the code to a commercial company.


    That's the reason that mysql uses p4 for versioning, and only uses sf.net for binary downloads.


    Savannah.gnu.org is a GPL fork of sourceforge used primarily for GNU projects, but will host any GPL project. BSD/other licenses don't care about proprietary forks, so sf.net is still useable for cvs.


    Mods - before you kneejerk me down to -1, I suggest you do give the sf.net TOS a very thorough reading.

  3. Re:Tucows by Horny+Smurf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tucows charges for reviews, but they don't charge for listings (although a donation makes a listing appear faster.)

  4. Re:Sourceforge and Freshmeat might help by rmohr02 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From the sf.net TOS (emphasis mine):
    6. LICENSING AND OTHER TERMS APPLYING TO CODE AND OTHER CONTENT POSTED ON SOURCEFORGE.NET: ...
    With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as message boards and bug trackers ("SourceForge.net Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such SourceForge.net Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display project activity, such content is owned by SourceForge.net. In each such case, the submitting user grants SourceForge.net the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable approved license.
    So they still have to stick with an OSI-approved license, but there's a world of difference between licenses such as MIT and BSD compared to the GPL.
  5. "Comments are owned by the poster" is misleading. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting


    The problem is that the "Comments are owned by the poster" statement is misleading. The owners of Slashdot say that they can use the comments any time and any way they want, without payment or notice. That means, if a Slashdot comment author becomes a CEO of an important company, the owners of Slashdot can publish a book of his comments without payment.

    That's why all of my comments are entirely owned by me. I grant no license to Slashdot. except to display my comments in the context in which they were entered. My opinion is that, if the terms of use were considered in court, the terms would be found to be invalid. Especially since, "Comments are owned by the Poster" is misleading authors about the terms.