Donationware: you must donate to use it. Not like regular optional donates.

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    591·
    9 months ago

    One of my favorite programs was acting up, so I went to reinstall. Turned out this program that has been free for a decade, now wants $29 a month, to let me pirate movies. Da fuck? What a way to shit the bed, to offer the same free program but charge for it out of nowhere

    • Rustmilian@lemmy.worldEnglish
      151·
      9 months ago

      That’s the true definition of donationware.
      If you’re being forced to “donate” any amount of money upfront to use the software, it’s no longer donationware, it’s literally just paidware. Even if the source code is available elsewhere under a FOSS license, that specific copy is by definition paidware.

      • Empricorn@feddit.nlEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        Sure. But the default is very powerful. They’ve proven they can literally get kids to eat healthier by where they place the vegetables in a school lunch queue.

        In this case, if people who can afford it choose to pay for software, and the developers are supported… what’s the harm (besides the annoyance)?

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          1·
          9 months ago

          It’s the same reasoning that is used for having there being a set tip amount. And I hate that too. I guess no harm other than annoyance though.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    39·
    9 months ago

    Escortware. You’re not paying for the software, you’re paying for the time you’re using the software.

      • dev_null@lemmy.ml
        44·
        9 months ago

        It’s a fair deal, but the point is it’s not a donation. You can purchase pro features, and that’s great. But it’s not a donation if you get a product in return, that’s just a purchase.

        • conti473@thelemmy.club
          41·
          9 months ago

          You can use it for free, you just need to donate to get rid of the banner and to get all features.

          The bare functionality is in fact free

          • dev_null@lemmy.ml
            9·
            9 months ago

            I’m not disputing that. I’m just finding it silly to call purchases donations.

            • conti473@thelemmy.club
              1·
              9 months ago

              Not if it has all the essential features, it has no 3rd party ads, tracking and is a privacy focused mail client.

              I only bought i because i could test it for months and saw everything works and it being updated and well maintained, it’s kinda pricey for a mail client.

              There are for sure nagging experiences in other programs, Fairmail is not one of them.

    • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
      93·
      9 months ago

      Voicemeeter did that too.

      But honestly i don’t really see what’s wrong. There’s a base donation for the price of the software but it just give the option to support the dev if you want…

      I mean most things that rely on donation like that are just cheap indie software (I think voicemeeter was $5)

      I’d take that over the awful and greedy subscriptions that cost an arm like adobe or Microsoft.

    • TimeNaan@lemmy.world
      4·
      9 months ago

      Screenskraper but they have to pay server costs so it makes sense.

      OCCT for some fucking reason, where it doesn’t.

      • twei@discuss.tchncs.de
        3·
        9 months ago

        OCCT doesn’t require you to purchase it for personal use (although you will get a 10sec timer before you can start a benchmark/stability test), which is why i think it doesn’t count as “donationware”

      • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
        10·
        9 months ago

        Maybe it’s regional, but the webpage doesn’t say anything about a donation. It uses language like “store,” “purchase” and “subscription.”

      • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
        34·
        9 months ago

        It’s free software. You can charge money for distribution of free software but if the user does then he has the right to have acces to the source code forever no restrictions. And that user is free to distribute copies of the software as he wishes.

        • Rustmilian@lemmy.worldEnglish
          72·
          9 months ago

          You can charge money for distribution of free software

          That copy is Paidware.

          but if the user does then he has the right to have acces to the source code forever no restrictions

          No. FOSS licenses provide protections/rights over the source code to the user regardless if that user paid for it/a pre-compiled binary or not.
          Even in a scenario where the source is restricted-access FOSS the license still grants those protections without exception. Moreover a restricted-access FOSS model goes against the very nature of FOSS, even if it’s not explicitly forbidden by the license. This kind of model is typically referred to as commercial open-source software (COSS).
          This approach is essentially commercial proprietary software but they messed up by picking the wrong license.

          • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
            13·
            9 months ago

            You can change for software distribution (binaries).Directly from gpl site…:

            Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney)

            Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

            Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my distribution site? (#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee)

            Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. Under GPLv2, if you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary. If the binaries being distributed are licensed under the GPLv3, then you must offer equivalent access to the source code in the same way through the same place at no further charge.

            • Rustmilian@lemmy.worldEnglish
              52·
              9 months ago

              Please speak with a lawyer.
              That specific sold binary copy is by definition paidware regardless of source code distribution as there’s a paywall preventing you from accessing that specific distribution of that specific copy.

              As for the rest :
              Directly from same gpl site.
              Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me? (#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee)

              No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program nonfree. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.

              The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.

              You can charge people a fee to get a copy from you. You can’t require people to pay you when they get a copy from someone else.

              If I distribute GPLed software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge? (#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic)

              No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

              Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement? (#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA)

              No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

              If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to [email protected].

              If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL.

              • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
                13·
                9 months ago

                That’s the same I’m saying. What you quoted just says that you can charge for distributing free software but you cannot force other holders of the software to distribute it asking for a charge.

                You as a distributor can charge for what you distribute, that’s it. And it has been done with a lot of free software, like with Linux. That’s why basically Linus changed his License from explicitly free in money to only free as in freedom.

                The thing is that free software allows to have a paywall if the distributor wants it. Which has a lot of sense. But does not allow to enforce it to other distributors.

                Richard Stallman distributed GNU tools by a price. HIS distribution of GNU tools. At the same time you can also get the GNU tools from idk Debian mirrors (for free).

                Free software isn’t free as in money. That’s the whole point. The adoption of Open Source by the “cool” companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.) has tainted the original meaning of free software.

                • Rustmilian@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  31·
                  9 months ago

                  Did you even read my first reply?
                  It wasn’t about wether or not you can charge. It was about the protections always being granted to the user regardless if they paid the fee. A user could “steal” a copy without paying a fee and still be able to legally distribute it, you wouldn’t even be able to press charges for “theft” because the license grants rights regardless of the means it was accessed.

                  Also it’s FOSS, not “free software”, they’re not the same thing. Free software could be any software that doesn’t cost money, FOSS is Free(-dom) Open Source Software.

  • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
    315·
    9 months ago

    I find it funny how the word retard has become a slur but the implication that something is retarded is still acceptable

    • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
      152·
      9 months ago

      Turns out there’s a difference between insulting a person and disparaging an inanimate thing.

    • flicker@lemmy.world
      143·
      9 months ago

      I don’t like either and have been mobbed over my opinion, despite being a caregiver for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

      One of the reasons I speak up as a caregiver is I have known ASD 1 people who admitted that it bothers them that people use that term, but they feel like they can’t make the argument themselves. Because they’re disabled.

      Out of touch assholes are the only ones still dug in over this.

      • Malle_Yeno@pawb.social
        92·
        9 months ago

        I’m sorry that you’ve been mobbed for sharing this view. That’s shitty.

        I feel like ableism, especially against people with intellectual and personality disability, is the one sphere where nobody seems to take the objections of the targeted group seriously, and simultaneously dismiss people speaking up for the targeted group for being “virtue signalers” or as whiners. So it’s like the only solution is to just not say anything.

        (Tangential but I have similar feelings about people calling others narcissists and attacking them for it, though I don’t feel like that is going to change anytime soon. Still, if the person targeted is actually a narcissist, then I feel like it’s bad to attack them for a diagnosis and symptoms they have no control over. And if they aren’t actually a narcissist, then why further stigmatize people with narcissism? It’s more complicated than the r-slur since abuse by narcissists happens and victims shouldn’t feel restricted from sharing their experiences accurately, but similar in how it’s disproportionately used to disparage and nobody takes objections to that usage seriously.)

      • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
        92·
        9 months ago

        I mean I’m autistic and adhd. I’ve been called retarded pretty much my whole life. To me it’s like the nword at this point. The only difference is I’m not black so I’m not gonna be throwing that around.

        • flicker@lemmy.world
          82·
          9 months ago

          I’m pretty sure you were downvoted by someone angry that you referenced the nword, even though you were literally equating the use of the word as a slur to your own experience. Which is a bummer, because as a neurologically atypical person, it can be difficult even to speak out to address your own lived experience, and can also be difficult to know what to say to have neurologically typical people grasp what you’re trying to express.

          Which demonstrates why I bitch about people using the word “retarded” as an insult. When people with that lived experience do speak up, sometimes it can be difficult to make the point you’re making in a way the greater population understands and BAM! Now you’ve pissed off everyone!

          It’s so ridiculous to me that there are people out there so proud, so attached to the words they use as insults that having someone else say, “You might be hurting someone other than the person you intend with that word, could you maybe pick another one?” outrages them.

          And, let me just say, if you’re too dim-witted to think up a better, more appropriate insult, you might be as stupid as the people you’re trying to insult.

      • Pringles@lemm.ee
        31·
        9 months ago

        I say it every now and then, but only for normally abled people acting like idiots. Is that an acceptable use?

        • flicker@lemmy.world
          83·
          9 months ago

          The problem is, you’re using someone else’s diagnosis as an insult. That’s the part that sucks.

          Luckily we’ve been able to phase out most of the people who still have “mental retardation” as their diagnosis. The disappointing thing is we still have (mostly older) people who will never be reclassified.

          • RoosterBoy@lemm.ee
            2·
            9 months ago

            As long as you get offended over the use of the word, you are giving that word power. Do what the LGBTQ community did and defang words like “f*g” and “qu##r”

            • flicker@lemmy.world
              4·
              9 months ago

              I don’t have the ability to explain to the mentally disabled why, when someone says a word that they associate with themselves in a mean way, that they shouldn’t be hurt.

              I have a woman in her late 60s who will tell anyone who listens about the time some kids called her “handicapped.” And she’ll cry over it. And it happened more than twenty years ago. So instead I have to advocate for the discontinuation of it’s use. My hands are kind of tied here.

              So I’ll keep reminding people, “Please don’t be an asshole if you can stop yourself.” And for the ones who either choose not to stop themselves, or gleefully continue to be assholes (like a troll, or the entitled prick who insists that since they don’t mean it “that way” everyone else should just accept that and understand it) I’ll do damage control. But even one less instance of damage control is a blessing.

    • tubaruco@lemm.ee
      31·
      9 months ago

      i guess the problem comes from the term instead of its meaning, even if that makes no sense

  • Pantherina@feddit.de
    271·
    9 months ago

    You can literally donate 1ct. I have no idea how people can complain when developers want money for their work.

    The “Linux community” is 80% users that dont contribute, 10% “powerusers” that still dont contribute, 5% people that help with nondevelopment work (bug reporting, community support, etc.) and 5% actual developers.

    (Completely rough estimation)

    • iso@lemy.lolOP
      3·
      9 months ago

      I have no problem with “pay what you can”. I just hate “you must donate X amount to use this software”. If I need to donate, then it is not a donate. It is payment.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    15·
    9 months ago

    I hear you. I think it’s just exceedingly rare. Not saying it doesn’t exist, I just think giving it a name is a little strange given how unbelievably rare it is. But, you got to start somewhere! So, I digress. I guess, here it is. 🤷‍♂️

  • Lele@feddit.de
    12·
    9 months ago

    There is also software that you could compile from source yourself but the binaries are locked behind a donation. Are those also donationware?

  • Jack@slrpnk.net
    12·
    9 months ago

    Where the fuck did you get this definition from?

    If I remember correctly vim is charityware and is entirely free, I only found out about the charity part on accident.

  • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
    10·
    9 months ago

    In English, the correct meaning of words is always optional. The language is fluid, literally anything can be a euphemism; idk if that’s also the case in other languages but it regularly trips up even native speakers.

    Even so, even with that much flexibility built into the language, this is still just malignant, cynical, toxic lying of the worst sort.

  • Hundun@beehaw.org
    7·
    9 months ago

    Hey what if my software is paid, but you can purchase it for N money or more, with an input field?

    Because that I’ve seen a lot, and it sounds suspiciously like what you’re describing, yet completely normal.

    Edited for grammar