Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: Parted Magic Continues Being Commercial-Only

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,611

    Default Parted Magic Continues Being Commercial-Only

    Phoronix: Parted Magic Continues Being Commercial-Only

    A new release of the once popular Parted Magic Linux distribution is available that aims to assist in data recovery and disk/partition management, but it continues to be commercial-only...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU2MDE

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    What's the news? Is there anything wrong with it?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    151

    Default

    5$ but no updates. 50$ for one year update subscribtion :'D Good luck!

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    What's the news? Is there anything wrong with it?
    The new release/update that's covered by most the article...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,082

    Default

    While I wish him luck, I consider this form of commercialization to be completely wrong.

    Let me quote Syllable:
    Quote Originally Posted by http://web.syllable.org/pages/about.html
    Trying to learn from history:
    The problem is that computer technology is very recent, and we are still in the gold rush period. When individuals started buying computers, companies pried the machines from the hands of scientists, and everyone tried to become as big as possible, as fast as possible. When the Internet became popular, they knew they had struck gold, and the miners' train has been unstoppable ever since. Maybe common computer owners are the Indians who got run over. The fact is that computers have never really been designed for common people. First they were made for scientists by scientists, and then they were made by companies to make money. Don't take our word for it, just count the number of advertisements that are on your computer, the computer that you own, that make your computer try to make you buy more stuff from companies. This is just one example of many in the way that personal computers work nowadays. They are too complicated, because scientists originally made them for themselves, and they get in your face because big companies slapped their own agendas on top of them. These are not machines that get out of your way and helpfully do what you want, like a microwave.
    If developer ships GPL + own modifications as distribution on CD, then:
    if his modifications are GPL too, he has to provide source to anyone, once public distributed; and he can't use any restrictions for further distribution even at zero cost.
    if he tries to avoid this, he has to use different license, I suggest proprietary; then he is in contraction with GPL concept and free software as is.

    I see DRM, ads, freemium and proprietary license as preprogrammed in this case, just before the project dies.
    No one is questioning the absolute necessity of monetary compensation, but its about approach, not altruism.

    So, why not offer bounty on features and make people pay for his work, instead of copies?

    I wish him luck with the project!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    783

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    if his modifications are GPL too, he has to provide source to anyone, once public distributed; and he can't use any restrictions for further distribution even at zero cost.
    He only has to provide the source to everyone who has been buying it. He cannot prevent them from redistributing said source for free, though.


    I'm not sure though, does this offer anything that a standard linux livecd wouldn't? Except for a bit of convenience and user guidance?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rohcQaH View Post
    He only has to provide the source to everyone who has been buying it. He cannot prevent them from redistributing said source for free, though.
    Here. What you said applies only to binaries, mate.

    Quote Originally Posted by rohcQaH View Post
    I'm not sure though, does this offer anything that a standard linux livecd wouldn't? Except for a bit of convenience and user guidance?
    If you reread my post, you'll notice I also mentioned not only this "aspect", but also this extras "license", as well as its fate.
    Last edited by brosis; 01-05-2014 at 09:26 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    If developer ships GPL + own modifications as distribution on CD, then:
    if his modifications are GPL too, he has to provide source to anyone, once public distributed; and he can't use any restrictions for further distribution even at zero cost.
    if he tries to avoid this, he has to use different license, I suggest proprietary; then he is in contraction with GPL concept and free software as is.
    I think we all know about this, but there's nothing on the website that leads me to think they are trying to avoid the GPL. In fact, having this U$S4.99 version with no updates makes me think they acknowledge people are free to redistribute, so they will make it expensive to maintain a parallel distribution with updates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    The new release/update that's covered by most the article...
    So the title relates to the article how, exactly? I don't know about you, but I expect titles to tell me if something might interest me or not. For this, I need them to actually be a brief "this is what the article is about".
    Also, most of the article talks about the (already informed) ways it's being commercialized. Only the last paragraph tells us about package changes.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    I think we all know about this, but there's nothing on the website that leads me to think they are trying to avoid the GPL. In fact, having this U$S4.99 version with no updates makes me think they acknowledge people are free to redistribute, so they will make it expensive to maintain a parallel distribution with updates.
    Then you have a distro, than needs to be paid to keep updating, or it be a freemium split with ads, then possible centos-ish split with a RHate of upstream, everyone slowing down and exchanging "wishes"; - instead of having a free OS out of supported projects, with a user choosing what exactly he wants to support, at his own desire/pace. Kickstarter does work, so it ain't a myth. Would work if license goes to GPL-only and all "DLCs" exchanged for the mention in credits/forming the features one needs.

    Hm,.. can't put a "my dish of soup"-disclamer as a signature for the lack of signature support here, but just mentioning it anyway.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    Then you have a distro, than needs to be paid to keep updating, or it be a freemium split with ads, then possible centos-ish split with a RHate of upstream, everyone slowing down and exchanging "wishes"; - instead of having a free OS out of supported projects, with a user choosing what exactly he wants to support, at his own desire/pace. Kickstarter does work, so it ain't a myth. Would work if license goes to GPL-only and all "DLCs" exchanged for the mention in credits/forming the features one needs.

    Hm,.. can't put a "my dish of soup"-disclamer as a signature for the lack of signature support here, but just mentioning it anyway.
    I'm not against your original post, brosis, I do think that's not the right way to commercialize (mostly because I don't see that working), I only argued that it doesn't look like they are trying to infringe the GPL.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •