Slashdot Mirror
Beware of "Backspaceware"
SubLevel writes "Since conception in 2004, Paint.NET has been generously been offering the software community the taste of successful freeware, by allowing anyone to download and decipher the entire working of their extremely popular photo editing program. As posted in the Official Paint.NET blog by Rick Brewster, "Backspaceware" as he has so coined has become a tremendous issue. "Paint.NET's license is very generous, and I even release the source code. All free of charge. Unfortunately it gets taken advantage of every once in awhile by scum who are trying to profit from the work of others. I like to call this backspaceware*. They download the source code for something, load it up in to Visual Studio (or whatever), hit the backspace key over the software's name and credits, type in a new name and author, and re-release it. They send it to all the download mirror sites, and don't always do a good job covering up their tracks.""
Isn't that how Microsoft got started?
I am a Slashdot participant. Information wants to be free. I can download other people's music and movies, and share them with millions of my friends via the Internet. Why can't somebody else do the same with software?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
So if Paint.NET's entry somehow appeared lower in some search engine's rankings, writing and distributing non-free software would somehow be justified? No, it wouldn't, but only if you value software freedom for its own sake. This shows yet another instance of how different the free software and open source philosophies are: open source philosophy will lead to defending endorsing programs which don't qualify as open source (which, I take it, is the movement you advocate for since you refer to "closing the source").
If what you're saying is true, I will not recommend the use of Paint.NET because that program no longer respects its users software freedom. I will recommend The GIMP instead, even for people who find The GIMP to have far more features than they really need (as so many do with the proprietary Photoshop program).
Digital Citizen
If he doesn't like it he shouldn't be releasing the source under a license that permits it. Isn't the MIT license GPL compatible? And I know that with a GPL program you can do exactly what he is complaining about, as long as you release your source as well. Sure, no matter what the license there will be douchebags out there that will break it, but if your license allows something don't complain about it when it happens. And you don't like the ones that are breaking the license? Then don't release the source code. I know there are a lot of FOSS lovers here that will hate me for saying that but if it is your code and you don't want people using it then don't open source it.