Wine 7.3 Released With More PE Conversion Work, Long Type Conversion Process

[oiaohm]

underhanded yes, absolutely, in the wrong, also yes. does it matter as far as the end user and the law are concerned? no. not until adobe files a DMCA to take it down for distributing it under a false license. this is my point, while they may not be allowed to provide the copy, as far as the law is concerned until adobe files a DMCA to get that taken down, the copy that you have is a valid and legal copy.

No that not the case. The installer tells you that you are meant to have purchased the software in the EULA to use the serial key. So you don't have a valid legal copy with all functionality enabled you only have a 90 day trial. This is Adobe for you let you get their products under the table only to come by latter and say pay for it.

Yes the user restrictions on the serial numbers is in that version from archive.org is in the include EULA with the software. You have the wrong idea that Adobe has to file a DMCA you are meant to follow the software included EULA right. Downloading a copy from archive.org is not purchasing a copy.

https://www.vondranlegal.com/adobe-infringement

CS2 is still in the Adobe audit software list. The reality is if the Adobe contracted Auditor comes to your door saying you got it from archive.org absolutely will not count in your favour. And they will be willing to take you to court for their money because they have won this in the past.

Please note if you are only using 1 bit of software out of that archive.org set and you say I got it from archive.org you will now be billed for all included parts in your settlement so you make your life way worse attempting to use the arguement you are using.

Quackdoc basically why will Adobe bother doing a DMCA taken down when the included license with the software restricts who is allowed to use those keys and anyone dumb enough to use that bundle that gets caught using it incorrectly end up paying adobe for everything in that bundle. Its not in adobe profit interest to fix it.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2007/jul/18/winningthrough

The reality here is allow some copyright infringement is a good way to restrict competition from developing. Particularly when that copyright infrignment allows taking money from people who would not have paid for adobe products normally and allows charging for more bits of software than what the user would have normally got illegally so making enforcement more profitable.

[Quackdoc]

Tukguk is underhanded.
"Adobe released this version for free to the general public as part of their end of life strategy for CS2 when they decided to retire their activation servers." This link.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160406145831/https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/creative-suite-2-activation-end-life.html

You can use the serial numbers provided as a part of the download only if you legitimately purchased CS2, CS2 applications, Acrobat 7, or Audition 3.

underhanded yes, absolutely, in the wrong, also yes. does it matter as far as the end user and the law are concerned? no. not until adobe files a DMCA to take it down for distributing it under a false license. this is my point, while they may not be allowed to provide the copy, as far as the law is concerned until adobe files a DMCA to get that taken down, the copy that you have is a valid and legal copy.

[oiaohm]

Archive.org doesn't "provide" anything, they distribute it, this is a very significant difference, one that allows them to operate with relative imputiny.

take this one here https://archive.org/details/Adobe-CS2
now, this is obviously incorrect to knowledgeable people as the software is neither foss nor PD, however as I said, when you download it, you are downloading it by the terms provided by the uploader, not by the terms provided by archive.org. they simply relay them. the legal action to be had in America is only to inform archive.org to let them take down the offending peice. as distributing software under the wrong licensing terms is covered under DMCA. the person who downloads the files are not to be held liable unless they are informed of an infraction previously.

Tukguk is underhanded.
"Adobe released this version for free to the general public as part of their end of life strategy for CS2 when they decided to retire their activation servers." This link.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160406145831/https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/creative-suite-2-activation-end-life.html

You can use the serial numbers provided as a part of the download only if you legitimately purchased CS2, CS2 applications, Acrobat 7, or Audition 3.

Yes Tukguk provided a link that you should have read before you downloaded it to check for any terms and conditions from Adobe. Free for general public but none of the keys are free to use if you did not already own a copy of the application.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201111200020/http://web.archive.org/web/20140921074844/http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/cs2-product-downloads.html

The serial numbers provided as a part of the download may only be used by customers who legitimately purchased CS2 or Acrobat 7 and need to maintain their current use of these products.

The one I pointed to who don't own copies of CS2 has the correct warning on usage. Tukguk puts a link to cover ass and if you don't follow it and read what the adobe terms are and proceed to use it you get to keep the Adobe legal ass reaming.

Quackdoc yes it was released free to the public but the include product keys/serials are to only be to used by those who had purchased the software and if you never owned the software its free for you to use in trial mode that will time out after 90 days. Those keys were also the demonstration/education keys yes that is another bit of the adobe website of old you need to be legal.

Also please note the adobe CS2 software installer does mention in terms that you are only to enter the serial numbers if you have purchased the software otherwise should proceed in trial mode.

[rmfx]

Yeah it's ugly, since having used Rust I use types.hxx everywhere:
using u8 = uint8_t;
using i8 = int8_t;
using u16 = uint16_t;
using i16 = int16_t;
using u32 = uint32_t;
using i32 = int32_t;
using u64 = uint64_t;
using i64 = int64_t;
using usize = size_t;
using isize = ssize_t;
using f32 = float;
using f64 = double;
using uchar = unsigned char;

I am pleased to not be the only one that finds that c/cpp primitives names are ugly/stupid/ inconsistent/complex.
Indeed Rust got it just right and consistent and simple as it should be in every language.
Calling 64-bit float double is just dumb, it's just a floating number encoded with 64 bit precision...

[Quackdoc]

Quackdoc archive.org is not providing home use or production usage Adobe product keys. Demonstration keys and Education only keys are very different things for what you are legally allowed to-do. Editing your own personal pictures is not inside the Adobe license the product keys are for from archive.org. Yes there are many sites handing out demonstration or educational product keys for old adobe products as this is free when this is really not the case.

Archive.org doesn't "provide" anything, they distribute it, this is a very significant difference, one that allows them to operate with relative imputiny.

take this one here https://archive.org/details/Adobe-CS2

this pack is explicitly listed as public domain or open source. as of https://archive.org/details/open_sou...ware?tab=about
the "provider" is tukguk. and they are what determine the terms under which the software is distributed.

now, this is obviously incorrect to knowledgeable people as the software is neither foss nor PD, however as I said, when you download it, you are downloading it by the terms provided by the uploader, not by the terms provided by archive.org. they simply relay them. the legal action to be had in America is only to inform archive.org to let them take down the offending peice. as distributing software under the wrong licensing terms is covered under DMCA. the person who downloads the files are not to be held liable unless they are informed of an infraction previously.

[oiaohm]

again archive.org is distributing the software, and the required key to operate said software under "open source or public domain" they absolutely have grounds to DMCA that. those are the permissions the software is being distributed with. as I said, maybe this is not legal, but legal burden lies on the distributor.

That the trap archive.org not everything on their site is public domain or open source or free software. And in the case of archive.org distributors has done their legal requirement of informing user that the software is restricted with these adobe products.

https://archive.org/details/TheAdobeCS2Pack

Disclaimer: Adobe is not endorsed with A-ManWare or ShermanTech. We upload these ISO files for educational use only. We worked hard on this project. Please support us with feedback!.

Like this pack. This is not public domain or open source. These are Educational use/demonstration keys. This is the catch just because you have been given a product key to operate a bit of software does not mean you have a license to really use it. Yes archive.org with adobe stuff you you look closely there is declare after declare that these are not open usage or public domain or open source software or what you would call free software.

Yes there is demonstration ware and educational only ware and trial ware all on archive.org. Yes there is also replacement media images as well.

The reality here is all Adobe CS2 keys on archive.org are either demonstration ware or educational usage only. Yes the old really strict adobe define of educational usage where everything that was not required for education assignment work or demonstration work that had been created with the software had to deleted inside 90 days. Yes the product key is watermarked into the produced files.

unless the license holder informs the person receiving said product or software, and they can prove continued infringement. this is why companies are legally required to send notice of infractions before taking any legal action.

The problem here the distributors like archive.org are in fact inform the people getting the software from them is restricted usage. Yes this does mean if adobe does catch you with and you are not using the software to license they can serous-ally take the hide out of you. Bad part is due to the creative cloud of adobe if your files end up uploaded that were made using of the educational/demonstration keys trouble is coming.

Quackdoc archive.org is not providing home use or production usage Adobe product keys. Demonstration keys and Education only keys are very different things for what you are legally allowed to-do. Editing your own personal pictures is not inside the Adobe license the product keys are for from archive.org. Yes there are many sites handing out demonstration or educational product keys for old adobe products as this is free when this is really not the case.

[Quackdoc]

That is again no. Even if product key is distributed as part of a collection does not mean the product key is not a demo product key. Did archive.org in fact sell you a license no. Does the terms of the license the product key that is on archive.org own to allow open usage the answer with all keys I have seen of Adobe Photoshop CS2 on archive.org the answer is no because they are demo product keys.

Quackdoc just because some party is a valid distributor of software does not mean they are providing you with useful license to use the software. Adobe provided CS2 and other software with multi difference licenses. There is the education and demo licenses of course the demo licenses are the most restrictive. So you get X days of trail when you can use Photoshop for what ever and once you use the included product key you have swapped to demo only where you are not meant to be using it any more.

Since its a demo key Adobe does not have valid ground to issue a DCMA but if you are found using that software Adobe can punish you for using their software illegally if you are using it for any other reason than software demonstrations because that all the product key is for.

again archive.org is distributing the software, and the required key to operate said software under "open source or public domain" they absolutely have grounds to DMCA that. those are the permissions the software is being distributed with. as I said, maybe this is not legal, but legal burden lies on the distributor. in the case of the USA. if you get something from someone who tells you, hey you are allowed to use this, the vast majority of the time, legal burden lies with the distributor, unless the license holder informs the person receiving said product or software, and they can prove continued infringement. this is why companies are legally required to send notice of infractions before taking any legal action.

unless they send notice of infringement, you bear no legal responsibility.

[oiaohm]

Archive.org is a legal distributor. Inside of the archives are not cracked copies (although that may be possible to do and legal depending on the circumstances) a key is also being distributed as part of the collection. and iirc, a product key in this regard is recognized as a license to use the software. archive.org being a valid distributor of software means that the key being distributed is also legally recognized unless adobe issues as DMCA against the collection and it gets taken down.

That is again no. Even if product key is distributed as part of a collection does not mean the product key is not a demo product key. Did archive.org in fact sell you a license no. Does the terms of the license the product key that is on archive.org own to allow open usage the answer with all keys I have seen of Adobe Photoshop CS2 on archive.org the answer is no because they are demo product keys.

Quackdoc just because some party is a valid distributor of software does not mean they are providing you with useful license to use the software. Adobe provided CS2 and other software with multi difference licenses. There is the education and demo licenses of course the demo licenses are the most restrictive. So you get X days of trail when you can use Photoshop for what ever and once you use the included product key you have swapped to demo only where you are not meant to be using it any more.

Since its a demo key Adobe does not have valid ground to issue a DCMA but if you are found using that software Adobe can punish you for using their software illegally if you are using it for any other reason than software demonstrations because that all the product key is for.

[Quackdoc]

No that arguement does not hold up in the USA and many other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware#Law . If you are being legal are depending on fair usage allowances this does not allow commercial usage. Archive.org does provide a lot of things for education only usage this is how they are able to host a lot of things because they are not providing you with that software to use. Yes you can acquire all forms abandon-ware software from archive.org but this does not mean you are licensed to use that software commercially or at home.

Abandon-ware like Adobe Photoshop CS2 is now is only legally usable by those who in fact have valid license or those using fair usage to do education demonstration...

As soon as someone says "sorta free" you need to look a lot closer. Normally sorta free has very strict limitations on how you can use the software legally. Adobe Photo-shop CS2 without a license you can use the trial period once and after that demo only to be legal.

Yes the borrowed book example is very right. As a borrowed book you are not legally allowed to modify the book outside general wear and tear right. Yes the borrowed book version of software is yes you are allowed to run software look at the features it contains but you cannot use it to make new files you intend on using/giving to other parties. Yes using that borrowed book version software to make new files would be like writing in a borrowed book. Basically without a license you don't own the right to use the software for particular things.

So "sorta" free with software equals "sorta" useless if you are being legal. Yes people have got use to using abandon-ware software illegaly due to how rare enforcement is.

Yes even the EU "Orphan Works Directive" does not cover using something like Adobe Photoshop CS2 to work on your own photos. If I wanted to set up a computer to demo what windows XP machine was like to students yes I could but Adobe Photoshop CS2 from archive.org on it and be under the "Orphan Works Directive" or be able to argue under fair usage.

There is a lot software at archive.org that is technically just museum pieces that you can show the software but you cannot legally use in the normal senses.

Lot of use who use open source software are very ware of the legalities here. One of the reasons why some of us use open source software is we are law following.

Archive.org is a legal distributor. Inside of the archives are not cracked copies (although that may be possible to do and legal depending on the circumstances) a key is also being distributed as part of the collection. and iirc, a product key in this regard is recognized as a license to use the software. archive.org being a valid distributor of software means that the key being distributed is also legally recognized unless adobe issues as DMCA against the collection and it gets taken down.

EDIT: usage is permitted under the collection that archive.org has it in. in this case it is in the "Community sofware collection" which is described as "Open Source Initiative or Free Software license, or is public domain." now while that does not mean it is legally so, however that is the terms you downloaded it under, and therefore legal responsibility is under the terms you got it from.

if the software is wrongfully distributed as such adobe must take action, but until it is, usage of the software is allowed as whatever it is distributed as

[oiaohm]

It is "sorta" free, you cana copy with eveything you need from archive.org. which in the USA at least, is a legal method of software acquisition. if they were "audited" it would be the same as having a borrowed book.

No that arguement does not hold up in the USA and many other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware#Law . If you are being legal are depending on fair usage allowances this does not allow commercial usage. Archive.org does provide a lot of things for education only usage this is how they are able to host a lot of things because they are not providing you with that software to use. Yes you can acquire all forms abandon-ware software from archive.org but this does not mean you are licensed to use that software commercially or at home.

Abandon-ware like Adobe Photoshop CS2 is now is only legally usable by those who in fact have valid license or those using fair usage to do education demonstration...

As soon as someone says "sorta free" you need to look a lot closer. Normally sorta free has very strict limitations on how you can use the software legally. Adobe Photo-shop CS2 without a license you can use the trial period once and after that demo only to be legal.

Yes the borrowed book example is very right. As a borrowed book you are not legally allowed to modify the book outside general wear and tear right. Yes the borrowed book version of software is yes you are allowed to run software look at the features it contains but you cannot use it to make new files you intend on using/giving to other parties. Yes using that borrowed book version software to make new files would be like writing in a borrowed book. Basically without a license you don't own the right to use the software for particular things.

So "sorta" free with software equals "sorta" useless if you are being legal. Yes people have got use to using abandon-ware software illegaly due to how rare enforcement is.

Yes even the EU "Orphan Works Directive" does not cover using something like Adobe Photoshop CS2 to work on your own photos. If I wanted to set up a computer to demo what windows XP machine was like to students yes I could but Adobe Photoshop CS2 from archive.org on it and be under the "Orphan Works Directive" or be able to argue under fair usage.

There is a lot software at archive.org that is technically just museum pieces that you can show the software but you cannot legally use in the normal senses.

Lot of use who use open source software are very ware of the legalities here. One of the reasons why some of us use open source software is we are law following.