(11-16-2009 08:27 PM)Zeydlitz Wrote:  It's non-free software (closed source), there is a lot of trouble with using such stuff.

Do you even know the definition of freeware?
Freeware is software that may be freely downloaded & used.
Open-Source & Closed-Source are an entirely different matter.
Further note I only go for free software and will not recommend something that you must pay for. One last thing the Piriform set are always free and reliable.

(11-16-2009 09:43 PM)Zeydlitz Wrote:  Freeware is not free -- it's simply cost nothing, but user trust to developer. If you plan to link something into whole pcsx2 project, you better think about source code of this stuff: if no source code presented, than this stuff is non-free, closed-source. License could be changed at any moment and pcsx2 become law-violated software.

How would it affect PCSX2 if it's only added as a suggested (meaning not required) software?

I think you misunderstand... Freeware is "free" in the sense that you don't have to pay for it... But it's not free software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware

The terminology is a bit dodgy, but when you refer to "Free software" it means a free program that's open source, where as "freeware" is software that you don't have to pay for as long as you follow it's license and is NOT open source.

(edit) as the Free Software Foundation defines it, Free software is free like freedom of speech, not free like free beer. That's the difference.

Furthermore, Freeware can often be covered by patents and copyrights (either of which is equally imposing these days thanks to DMCA). This is what Zeydlitz refers to, and is a trick that's already been used a couple times: Allow open source software to use your stuff, and then pull the rug out later on and claim a right to patent royalties for continued use.

This was one of the major motivations behind the release of GPLv3 -- one of the new clauses states that any source code released under GPLv3 has explicitly given up its patent protection. This was in direct response to software companies releasing patented software under GPLv2, and then later claiming a right to receive royalties for use of the patented portions of the code.

(11-17-2009 03:33 PM)Air Wrote:  Furthermore, Freeware can often be covered by patents and copyrights (either of which is equally imposing these days thanks to DMCA). This is what Zeydlitz refers to, and is a trick that's already been used a couple times: Allow open source software to use your stuff, and then pull the rug out later on and claim a right to patent royalties for continued use.

This was one of the major motivations behind the release of GPLv3 -- one of the new clauses states that any source code released under GPLv3 has explicitly given up its patent protection. This was in direct response to software companies releasing patented software under GPLv2, and then later claiming a right to receive royalties for use of the patented portions of the code.

Doesn't what form of licensing the company uses they cannot put a license on information they or their program did not create and as their program simply provides a quicker method of gathering information that would otherwise taken a while to put together they cannot put a license on that information. If you can prove me wrong I'll shut up about this.

First off, this thread is getting way off topic, 2nd, they already proved it.

(11-17-2009 06:15 PM)Xellon Wrote:  First off, this thread is getting way off topic, 2nd, they already proved it.

I aggree that the thread has gone off topic a bit but could you point me to the proof please, I can't see it anywhere.