×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Photoshop Express Terms of Use Cause Stir, Will Be Revised

Soulskill posted about 6 years ago | from the read-the-fine-print dept.

Graphics 111

Earlier this week, we discussed Adobe's beta launch of Photoshop Express, a free, online version of the popular image editing software. However, as a number of readers pointed out, the terms of use included language which granted Adobe a wide range of rights to any photos that were made available on the site. Now, after receiving a great deal of feedback from potential users, Adobe has stated their intent to rewrite the terms of use, as Ars Technica reports. David Morgenstern of ZDNet also notes the impending change, and briefly discusses the privacy and ownership concerns involved with content you post online.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

111 comments

Even if they "fix" it .. (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 6 years ago | (#22913128)

who's to say they won't change it back again at some point in the future? This really highlights all the problems with using someone else's equipment to host and processes personal data files.

Network Freedom. (0, Flamebait)

twitter (104583) | about 6 years ago | (#22913596)

So, will you stand up for your rights and demand network neutrality and the removal of port blocks? Nothing else will give you network freedom and all other freedoms die without a free press.

Re:Network Freedom. (2, Interesting)

MrNaz (730548) | about 6 years ago | (#22913718)

I think that this is a foreshadowing of things to come. This is an indication of big corporates' desire to gain control or influence over not only the software that we use by turning into a subscription model (SaaS or whatever buzzword/buzzacro it is) but also ensuring that whatever we create using it is controllable by the providers of the software.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, SaaS providers such as Google may decide that they will muscle in on user data created using Google Apps with copyright tricks like this.

Just because the first attempt resulted in a big company backing down does not mean the heat in the pot hasn't risen a few degrees for the proverbial frog.

Re:Network Freedom. (1)

LocalH (28506) | about 6 years ago | (#22917726)

This foreshadowing has been going on for 20 years. Electronic Arts tried to claim that they owned the copyrights to images created with Deluxe Paint and the courts smacked them down. The only reason things like this can even possibly fly now is because they're not going quite so far as to claim full copyright, but rather claiming that via EULA they have an irrevocable license to the content.

Re:Network Freedom. (1, Insightful)

MrNaz (730548) | about 6 years ago | (#22917870)

Yeap, they toned down the aggression a little to make it a bit easier for everyone to swallow. Eventually they get the inch they want and the pot rises a few degrees.

Moderators: Please note (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22914844)

For those of you granting mod points to twitter (who now has five different accounts with which he posts to Slashdot, happily gaming the system), this [slashdot.org] is what he was posting earlier today.

Please don't reward this unhelpful type of "advocacy" in any way.

Waaaahhhhh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22915192)

We can't censor twitter, no matter how hard we try. Booo hooo.

Re:Waaaahhhhh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22916368)

This isn't about 'censoring Twitter' you arrogant little pissant.

This is about teaching someone who lies repeatedly, cheats the system, and insults children for disagreeing with him a lesson in basic fucking humility.

Re:Even if they "fix" it .. (3, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | about 6 years ago | (#22913632)


who's to say they won't change it back again at some point in the future?

Anything is possible. But what's more important is what's likely.

Adobe has really little to gain by changing it back to current incarnation of the license. They're in the business of producing and selling software, not tricking people into given them rights to sell stock photography. They won't change it back because it'd be a pretty obviously dumb business move by Adobe.

This really highlights all the problems with using someone else's equipment to host and processes personal data files.

No, it really highlights the fact that many software companies don't really understand the legal implications of hosting someones data. They likely just called up the lawyers and said "make sure we don't get burned somehow by hosting this content". The lawyers pulled out some boilerplate language and changed it around a little bit, not thinking that the guy submitting content might actually want to retain some of his rights (end users have right? Who'd have thought that!).

Not every company is trying to screw you over at every single moment. They tend to pick and choose those times carefully ;).

Re:Even if they "fix" it .. (1)

Lobais (743851) | about 6 years ago | (#22913704)

This really highlights all the problems with using someone else's equipment to host and processes personal data files.
Because a non-hosted, proprietary piece of software couldn't contain a "All content created with this sofware belongs to company X and will be sent to us as soon as you connect to the Internet" claim?

Re:Even if they "fix" it .. (1, Troll)

Belial6 (794905) | about 6 years ago | (#22913926)

I would say that MS has gotten halfway their with their Visual Studio Express license. I'm sure that most of the people that downloaded the "free" software didn't notice that the EULA specifically bans the distribution of YOUR programs as OSS. I expect to see this kind of thing happen with more software/services/products/companies as time goes on. We are currently at the cusp of the share cropper stage to corporations. I hope that we don't become full fledged slaves.

Re:Even if they "fix" it .. (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | about 6 years ago | (#22914012)

Hmm, coincidentally I'm about to install VC++ Express 2008, and will probably use it for some open source software development eventually. Can you provide a reference to this? I've never heard of it before and of course I (foolishly) didn't RTFEULA. Of course, I can always use Dev-C++ for anything open source, and some stuff I just use notepad++ and cygwin/mingw for so hopefully it shouldn't affect me. And I don't know if this is just a common myth on slashdot, but how enforceable are EULAs?

Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition license terms (2, Informative)

toby (759) | about 6 years ago | (#22914436)

Here's the EULA. It is crystal clear from (2) that you are not permitted to offer anything you develop under an open source license. You may also be interested in the restriction on allowed runtime environment (Microsoft only). Also entertaining is the injunction that "You may not work around any technical limitations in the software."

All in all, it's the usual perfectly odious nonsense I'd expect from them.

As for enforceability: Well why don't you find out? Go mano-a-mano in court with their lawyers.

Better advice: Just don't go near any of their stuff!

MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS
MICROSOFT VISUAL C++ 2008 EXPRESS EDITION

These license terms are an agreement between Microsoft Corporation (or based on
where you live, one of its affiliates) and you. Please read them. They apply to
the software named above, which includes the media on which you received it, if
any. The terms also apply to any Microsoft
* updates,
* supplements,
* Internet-based services, and
* support services
for this software, unless other terms accompany those items. If so, those terms
apply.

BY USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THEM, DO NOT
USE THE SOFTWARE.
AS DESCRIBED BELOW, USING SOME FEATURES ALSO OPERATES AS YOUR CONSENT TO THE
TRANSMISSION OF CERTAIN STANDARD COMPUTER INFORMATION FOR INTERNET-BASED SERVICES.

If you comply with these license terms, you have the rights below.

1. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS.
a. Installation and Use. One user may install and use any number of copies of
the software on your devices to design, develop and test your programs.
b. Included Microsoft Programs. The software contains other Microsoft
programs. These license terms apply to your use of those programs.

2. ADDITIONAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS AND/OR USE RIGHTS.
a. Distributable Code. The software contains code that you are permitted to
distribute in programs you develop if you comply with the terms below.
i. Right to Use and Distribute. The code and text files listed below are
"Distributable Code."
* REDIST.TXT Files. You may copy and distribute the object code form of code
listed in REDIST.TXT files.
* Sample Code. You may modify, copy, and distribute the source and object
code form of code marked as "sample."
* Microsoft Merge Modules. You may copy and distribute the unmodified output
of Microsoft Merge Modules.
* MFCs, ATLs and CRTs. You may modify the source code form of Microsoft
Foundation Classes (MFCs), Active Template Libraries (ATLs), and C runtimes (CRTs)
to design, develop and test your programs, and copy and distribute the object code
form of your modified files under a new name.
* Third Party Distribution. You may permit distributors of your programs to
copy and distribute the Distributable Code as part of those programs.
ii. Distribution Requirements. For any Distributable Code you distribute, you
must
* add significant primary functionality to it in your programs;
* for any Distributable Code having a filename extension of .lib, distribute
only the results of running such Distributable Code through a linker with your
program;
* distribute Distributable Code included in a setup program only as part of
that setup program without modification;
* require distributors and external end users to agree to terms that protect
it at least as much as this agreement;
* display your valid copyright notice on your programs; and
* indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Microsoft from any claims, including
attorneys' fees, related to the distribution or use of your programs.
iii. Distribution Restrictions. You may not
* alter any copyright, trademark or patent notice in the Distributable Code;
* use Microsoft's trademarks in your programs' names or in a way that
suggests your programs come from or are endorsed by Microsoft;
* distribute Distributable Code to run on a platform other than Microsoft
operating systems, run-time technologies, or application platforms;
* include Distributable Code in malicious, deceptive or unlawful programs; or
* modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code so that any
part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. An Excluded License is one that
requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that
* the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form; or
* others have the right to modify it.

3. INTERNET-BASED SERVICES. Microsoft provides Internet-based services with
the software. It may change or cancel them at any time.
a. Consent for Internet-Based Services. The software feature described below
connects to Microsoft or service provider computer systems over the Internet. In
some cases, you will not receive a separate notice when they connect. BY USING
THIS FEATURE, YOU CONSENT TO THE TRANSMISSION OF THIS INFORMATION. Microsoft does
not use the information to identify or contact you.
i. Computer Information. The following feature uses Internet protocols, which
send to the appropriate systems computer information, such as your Internet
protocol address, the type of operating system, browser and name and version of the
software you are using, and the language code of the device where you installed the
software. Microsoft uses this information to make the Internet-based service
available to you.
Real Simple Syndication ("RSS") Feed. This software start page contains updated
content that is supplied by means of an RSS feed online from Microsoft.

4. PRODUCT KEYS. The software requires a key to install or access it. You
are responsible for the use of the keys assigned to you. You should not share the
keys with third parties.

5. MANDATORY ACTIVATION. TO PREVENT THE UNLICENSED USE, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE
TO USE THE SOFTWARE IF YOU DO NOT ACTIVATE IT AS DESCRIBED DURING INSTALLATION.
You can activate the software by Internet or telephone; Internet and telephone
service charges may apply. Some changes to your computer components or the
software may require you to reactivate the software. THE SOFTWARE WILL REMIND YOU
TO ACTIVATE UNTIL YOU DO.

6. SQL SERVER BENCHMARK TESTING. You must obtain Microsoft's prior written
approval to disclose to a third party the results of any benchmark test of the SQL
Server software that accompanies this software.

7. MICROSOFT .NET FRAMEWORK SOFTWARE. The software contains Microsoft .NET
Framework software. This software is part of Windows. The license terms for
Windows apply to your use of this .NET Framework component.

8. MICROSOFT .NET FRAMEWORK BENCHMARK TESTING. The software includes the .NET
Framework component of the Windows operating systems (".NET Component"). You may
conduct internal benchmark testing of the .NET (".NET Component"). You may
disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Component, provided that you
comply with the following terms: (1) you must disclose all the information
necessary for replication of the tests, including complete and accurate details of
your benchmark testing methodology, the test scripts/cases, tuning parameters
applied, hardware and software platforms tested, the name and version number of any
third party testing tool used to conduct the testing, and complete source code for
the benchmark suite/harness that is developed by or for you and used to test both
the .NET Component and the competing implementation(s); (2) you must disclose the
date(s) that you conducted the benchmark tests, along with specific version
information for all Microsoft software products tested, including the .NET
Component; (3) your benchmark testing was performed using all performance tuning
and best practice guidance set forth in the product documentation and/or on
Microsoft's support web sites, and uses the latest updates, patches and fixes
available for the .NET Component and the relevant Microsoft operating system; (4)
it shall be sufficient if you make the disclosures provided for above at a publicly
available location such as a website, so long as every public disclosure of the
results of your benchmark test expressly identifies the public site containing all
required disclosures; and (5) nothing in this provision shall be deemed to waive
any other right that you may have to conduct benchmark testing. The foregoing
obligations shall not apply to your disclosure of the results of any customized
benchmark test of the .NET Component, whereby such disclosure is made under
confidentiality in conjunction with a bid request by a prospective customer, such
customer's application(s) are specifically tested and the results are only
disclosed to such specific customer. Notwithstanding any other agreement you may
have with Microsoft, if you disclose such benchmark test results, Microsoft shall
have the right to disclose the results of benchmark tests it conducts of your
products that compete with the .NET Component, provided it complies with the same
conditions above.

9. Scope of License. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only
gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights.
Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use
the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must
comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it
in certain ways. You may not work around any technical limitations in the
software. For example, Microsoft has technically limited or disabled extensibility
for the software, and so you may not extend the software by, among other things,
loading or injecting into the software any non-Microsoft add-ins, macros, or
packages; modifying the software registry settings; or adding features or
functionality equivalent to that found in other Visual Studio products.
You also may not
* reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to
the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
* make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or
allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
* publish the software for others to copy;
* rent, lease or lend the software;
* transfer the software or this agreement to any third party; or
* use the software for commercial software hosting services.

10. BACKUP COPY. You may make one backup copy of the software. You may use it
only to reinstall the software.

11. DOCUMENTATION. Any person that has valid access to your computer or
internal network may copy and use the documentation for your internal, reference
purposes.

12. Export Restrictions. The software is subject to United States export laws
and regulations. You must comply with all domestic and international export laws
and regulations that apply to the software. These laws include restrictions on
destinations, end users and end use. For additional information, see
www.microsoft.com/exporting.

13. SUPPORT SERVICES. Because this software is "as is," we may not provide
support services for it.

14. Entire Agreement. This agreement, and the terms for supplements, updates,
Internet-based services and support services that you use, are the entire agreement
for the software and support services.

15. Applicable Law.
a. United States. If you acquired the software in the United States,
Washington state law governs the interpretation of this agreement and applies to
claims for breach of it, regardless of conflict of laws principles. The laws of
the state where you live govern all other claims, including claims under state
consumer protection laws, unfair competition laws, and in tort.
b. Outside the United States. If you acquired the software in any other
country, the laws of that country apply.

16. Legal Effect. This agreement describes certain legal rights. You may have
other rights under the laws of your country. You may also have rights with respect
to the party from whom you acquired the software. This agreement does not change
your rights under the laws of your country if the laws of your country do not
permit it to do so.

17. Disclaimer of Warranty. The software is licensed "as-is." You bear the
risk of using it. Microsoft gives no express warranties, guarantees or conditions.
You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws which this agreement
cannot change. To the extent permitted under your local laws, Microsoft excludes
the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and
non-infringement.

18. Limitation on and Exclusion of Remedies and Damages. You can recover from
Microsoft and its suppliers only direct damages up to U.S. $5.00. You cannot
recover any other damages, including consequential, lost profits, special, indirect
or incidental damages.
This limitation applies to
* anything related to the software, services, content (including code) on
third party Internet sites, or third party programs; and
* claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, guarantee or condition,
strict liability, negligence, or other tort to the extent permitted by applicable
law.
It also applies even if Microsoft knew or should have known about the possibility
of the damages. The above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you because
your country may not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental, consequential
or other damages.

Re:Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition license terms (2, Insightful)

Tanktalus (794810) | about 6 years ago | (#22914794)

It doesn't seem clear to me at all that you can't use the Express VC++ to write, compile, or distribute open-source applications.

Open source, in my understanding, merely requires that you distribute your source such that someone can recompile it. It does not require you to distribute the compiler with it. Nor does it require that the compiler be open source.

Thus, if your code can compile with Cygwin and VC++, but you distribute the copy you created with VC++, I don't see what the issue would be. Users who want to compile it themselves, and/or modify your code to do something else would have no problems doing so, assuming they had a compiler that works for the code in question. It does not appear to me to be any different than writing code using the Win32 API directly - that can be OSS, too, so why not something compiled with VC++? I didn't distribute the code to the Win32 API, nor to the C runtime library(ies).

re-read with more care (0, Troll)

toby (759) | about 6 years ago | (#22914930)

It restricts what you are allowed to do with code you develop with this MS product. One of those prohibited things is to distribute it under an "excluded license". 2 iii) makes it clear that this refers to open source licenses (gee, wonder why?)

It doesn't matter if the same code might be compiled one day by someone else using a different compiler. By downloading this MS product, using it to develop code, and licensing it thus, you're plainly breaking these terms.

I don't believe you have to be a lawyer to figure that out. And you don't need to be a genius to figure out why they prohibit it.

Re:re-read with more care (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | about 6 years ago | (#22916346)

I don't believe you have to be a lawyer to figure that out. And you don't need to be a genius to figure out why they prohibit it.

Because they think they can?

Capitalized "Distributable Code" (2, Informative)

pikine (771084) | about 6 years ago | (#22917214)

The terms about "Distributable Code" refers to the bullet points in (2) (a) (i) in the license. One of the item listed there is MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes), a C++ library for GUI programming, similar to QT. Since MFC source code is provided and they let you modify and redistribute it with your proram, I think it's understandable that they don't want to accidentally turn MFC into open source.

sorry, seems you're right (2, Informative)

toby (759) | about 6 years ago | (#22914966)

Applies to their Distributable Code. Looks like I got it wrong. Oops...

Re:sorry, seems you're right (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | about 6 years ago | (#22915612)

Yeah, so if I am understanding this correctly that part only applies to their samples and such, not stuff you write? Or is that mentioned somewhere else... legalese gives me a headache.

Mod parent up, please... (1)

5of0 (935391) | about 6 years ago | (#22918202)

This clause only applies to their Distributable Code. Unless you can show that that that means anything you write, this is all FUD. And yes, FOSSies are also guilty of FUD. Sorry all. Microsoft isn't exactly the friendliest company ever, but you're going to have to find another tree to bark up.

Re:Even if they "fix" it .. (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 6 years ago | (#22914478)

I believe that it is shown during install. Given that you have already downloaded the software and are planning to install it anyway, it is easier for you to read the EULA than I, so I will leave that exercise to you. I decided not to use the MS Express product because of that clause. I would hate to think that I could not give my code to other people, and that MS could decide how my code was used.

I would say that the EULA are not legally very enforceable, but MS could easily run a lawsuit for a year or two, driving you into bankruptcy with the plausable deniability that they thought they were.

Re:Even if they "fix" it .. (1)

Threni (635302) | about 6 years ago | (#22914192)

> This really highlights all the problems with using someone else's equipment to host and processes personal data files.

We need some sort of statement - not a contract like the GPL or whatever as such - which companies who care about not pissing off users with this sort of thing (or trying to steal their work by hiding non-obvious clauses in the contract) - which states something like:

Obviously just because you use this software doesn't mean we own the rights to it, any more than we'd own the rights to it if you bought the software outright.

I can't see correctly wording such a statement (plus any other statements which deal with other similar devious tactics/genuine mistakes) into something legally meaningful being much of a problem - the GPL (et al) are far more involved (although they've not yet been tested in court as far as I know).

Re:Even if they "fix" it .. (1)

TehZorroness (1104427) | about 6 years ago | (#22916642)

Stallman explained this very clearly in one of his speeches (don't remember where). You have to be really stupid to use something like this, especially when the GIMP can be downloaded for free.

Just use the GIMP (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22913162)

Certainly Photoshop has a few remaining strengths over the GIMP when it comes to professional editing. However, the audience that Photoshop Express is marketed too have much simpler needs, and when they might need something a bit more powerful, the GIMP can step in and help. I'm ever more delighted as I discover the power that GIMP has for photo editing on an amateur basis, and it's all free and Free.

All it really needs is a better manual--the GIMP docs are much less friendly than e.g. Beginning GIMP [amazon.com] .

Re:Just use the GIMP (4, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 6 years ago | (#22913206)

Certainly Photoshop has a few remaining strengths over the GIMP

Regardless of the technical merits, the reality is that Photoshop has the acceptance of professionals everywhere, and that kind of inertia will be hard to overcome even if GIMP ultimately exceeds Photoshop in capability and usability. "Free" means little to people that use something as a business tool that can be written off their taxes, and which they must trust to get the job done. That said, Photoshop is hardly perfect, Adobe is an obnoxious company, and I sincerely hope that the GIMP makes it out of amateur status and truly does go head-to-head with Adobe's stuff. Sooner or later it will, I think.

Re:Just use the GIMP (4, Informative)

chunk08 (1229574) | about 6 years ago | (#22913534)

I have used both (GIMP at home, Photoshop at school). I can see several areas where gimp needs to catch up with Photoshop. Most of these should be made much easier to implement by GEGL
  1. Text scaling: use actual font rendering for scaled text instead of image scaling
  2. Adjustment layers: won't be needed when GEGL's non-destructive editing is implemented.
  3. layer effects: Useful for adding text to images, among other things
  4. clipping masks: Also useful for adding text, especially when combined with layer effects
  5. brush sizes: do away with "brush editor" for everyday circle/square brushes and get a toolbar. I hate using a dialog to adjust size/hardness/transparency.
  6. CYMK etc. color support
If GIMP gets these things, it will surpass Photoshop. I personally enjoy using software that I'm required to pay for a license for, or be bound to use on only 1 or 2 computers. Also, I can't wait to get my hands on non-destructive editing.

Re:Just use the GIMP (3, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | about 6 years ago | (#22913978)

7. Change the name.
8. Offer a UI skin that is more like ps.

Re:Just use the GIMP (1)

chunk08 (1229574) | about 6 years ago | (#22914128)

7. Change the name.

Agreed... Suggestions anyone?

8. Offer a UI skin that is more like ps.

Maybe not. The skin isn't the problem (and changes with the gnome theme anyway. The UI functionality and layout needs some work...

Re:Just use the GIMP (5, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | about 6 years ago | (#22915246)

7. Change the name.
Agreed... Suggestions anyone?
Photo
Image
Manipulation
Program
?

Re:Just use the GIMP (1)

chunk08 (1229574) | about 6 years ago | (#22915302)

LOL... Sorry I asked. How about non-Linear Image Manipulation Program? Ok I know... lame comeback.

Re:Just use the GIMP (1, Redundant)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | about 6 years ago | (#22915660)

How about : Full Utility Computer Kit Presenting User-friendly Professional Photo Editing Tools.

We can call it FUCK PUPPET for short.

Re:Just use the GIMP (1)

bennomatic (691188) | about 6 years ago | (#22916974)

You laugh, but back in the early days of my career, I worked with one of the biggest UUCP mail providers in the country, and a very popular BBS program (TBBS) had a proprietary front-end called "Personal Internet Mail Processor". I spent some naive time assuming that the writers just didn't realize what that acronym meant, but then I saw their logo, which was a purple fedora with a huge feather coming out of it.

From a site that still had a reference to PIMP dating back to 1993 (BARBA magazine, issue #8):

The Personal Internet Mail Processor (PIMP) Version 2.00 is available for TBBS sysops. Messages are converted into the TBBS format. Callers deal with Internet email using the features of TBBS. UUEncode/UUDecode (discussed later) of email is handled as a file attachment in TBBS. PCB-UUCP allows PCBoard BBSs to exchange Internet email and Usenet newsgroups. Version 15.0 of PCBoard has been enhanced so that the TO and FROM fields are now 125 characters, to allow for Internet email addressing. As with PIMP for TBBS, attachment of UUEncode/ UUDecode messages are handled.

Re:Just use the GIMP (2, Insightful)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | about 6 years ago | (#22917404)

I agree that the name is crucial. The GIMP is never going to gain mainstream acceptance for as long as it has a name that some people might actually find offensive. GIMP developers: I'm sorry, it's not cute. Even if it wasn't offensive, it says horrible things about your software's abilities. Per the New Oxford American Dictionary:

a physically handicapped or lame person.
  a limp.
  a feeble or contemptible person.

Performance and functionality issues aside, I can't even bring it up in any kind of social setting without first having to apologize for the name.

Re:Just use the GIMP (1)

SnEptUne (1264814) | about 6 years ago | (#22916978)

1. Yes, being able to scale the text using mouse is much preferred, as far as I can tell, it isn't possible to scale the text yet. Or were you referring to layer transforms? I don't think anyone would use that to scale text as that would destroy the text object. 2. Adjustment layers is useful for applying and concatentating effect, I don't see how GEGL can replace that. (I have never heard of it until I "googled", Adobe people sure come up with funny names. It is called "Lens" since version 7 of Corel PhotoPAINT) 3. Layer effect? Isn't that adjustment layers? 4. Clipping mask is Layer mask. 5. There is one. It is called brush selection dialog (you can call it toolbar). But I do agree that it isn't the most usable way to make brush selection (it would be nice to have shortcut key for each basic brush). 6. Yes, we need CYMK support. Beside CYMK support, we definitely need a better script recorder that let user record their actions into scripts to be edited or processed. To me, this feature is more important than anything mentioned above, which I can do without.

Re:Just use the GIMP (3, Insightful)

richard.york (829554) | about 6 years ago | (#22913638)

That said, Photoshop is hardly perfect, Adobe is an obnoxious company, and I sincerely hope that the GIMP makes it out of amateur status and truly does go head-to-head with Adobe's stuff. Sooner or later it will, I think.

Well, they might start by calling it something other than GIMP....

Which of the more common definitions do you think people associate with this fine product?

Gimp: lameness: disability of walking due to crippling of the legs or feet

Gimp: is a usually derogatory term used to refer to a (male or female) sexual submissive person, typically dressed in black leather (or rubber), often in a gimp suit, and wearing a bondage hood or mask of the same material. ...

Courtesy of http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+gimp [google.com]

Your average Joe isn't going to know that it means GNU Image Manipulation Program.

For God sake, the most common definition implies that it is crippled! I haven't used the GIMP much, my company bought a copy of Photoshop just for little ol' me. So to me it makes no difference if the GIMP is free or not, setting aside its ridiculous name, I didn't have to pay for Photoshop anyway.

Re:Just use the GIMP (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 6 years ago | (#22913732)

Who cares how many people end up using the GIMP in a professional environment? Many people just want a program to use at home for a little quick photo editing. By getting home users to start using GIMP, this takes serious market share and mind share away from Adobe. The best thing about photo editing is that we don't have to worry about proprietary formats (as much) as we do with document editing. This means that you can use whichever tool you want, and don't have to really worry about what the rest of the world is using.

Re:Just use the GIMP (1)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | about 6 years ago | (#22914088)

I'm a big photoshop user, and it does have several technical advantages over GIMP. I think that one of the key things, though, in getting GIMP accepted by the average home user would be the publication of a lot more user manuals, tips-n-tricks books, and that kind of thing. The point is that the average user, who just wants to manipulate a few photos, is probably also the kind of user for whom free software is a worry. They imagine that it contains spyware, viruses, annoying ads, or bugs that will "break" their computer. Online documentation won't help this, because it is automatically suspect by being published online (anyone could do that, right). Easily available and professionally produced books, on the shelves of their local bookstore, or with good reviews on Amazon, will go a long way to persuading them that this is a reputable product that is safe to download and use.

Re:Just use the GIMP (1)

Vellmont (569020) | about 6 years ago | (#22913862)


the reality is that Photoshop has the acceptance of professionals everywhere, and that kind of inertia will be hard to overcome even if GIMP ultimately exceeds

Market change of established products rarely, if ever start from the top down. It's invariably from the bottom up. There's a constant crop of people doing photo editing that don't necessarily have the $$ to buy Photoshop (and will think the online product sucks ass). Those people might just start using a free product like Gimp. Later on they get real jobs as graphic designers, and are already familiar with Gimp, so why switch?

The bottom-up toppling of Established Products happens over and over. The latest one I learned about was Centronics (which apparently was a real company, not just a printer interface) that was THE company that made printers for Mainframe and Mini computers. They were quite expensive to match the price of the Mainframe and Mini.

The microcomputers came along in the late 70s/early 80s, and of course people were going to want printers for them, but not the multi thousand dollar Centronics. Commodore actually approached centronics with an idea to use the 6502 chip to make a much lower cost printer, affordable for someone buying a microcomputer. They were going to help them develop the product, etc. Centronics essentially said "no", so Commodore went to the Japanese company Epson with the same deal. Epson made the print head, and commodore developed the controller interface. That was the first cheap dot-matrix printer. Guess which company still makes printers, and which one most people have never heard of, or think it's just some strange old interface name?

Re:Just use the GIMP (2, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | about 6 years ago | (#22913296)

"All it really needs" is to send all of its devs over to GTK for a month and make that not suck, or cut it altogether and use a decent widget library.

Re:Just use the GIMP (1)

moreati (119629) | about 6 years ago | (#22913536)

Out of curiosity, in what ways does GTK suck for you?

Not trying to troll, I'm a detail junkie. Alex.

Re:Just use the GIMP (3, Informative)

Brian Gordon (987471) | about 6 years ago | (#22914278)

Because it's ugly! Have you ever seen microsoft's widgets? Droool, especially their Office 07 stuff. Even cocoa is much slicker than GTK.

Re:Just use the GIMP (1)

moreati (119629) | about 6 years ago | (#22914546)

Agreed on the default GTK theme, ugly as sin. The native look and feel (WIMP) theme for Windows is not great, but okay. I rarely see the default theme these days though & I quite like the theme chosen for Ubuntu Gutsy. It's all a matter of personal taste though.

My personal gripe with GTK, is it's choice to use non-native open/save dialogs on Windows. Alex.

Re:Just use the GIMP (1)

tehBoris (1120961) | about 6 years ago | (#22915548)

You do know that there are these things called "GTK [gnome-look.org] themes" [gnome.org] that allow you to change the look of GTK widgets?

Amazing, yeah, I know.

Re:Just use the GIMP (4, Insightful)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | about 6 years ago | (#22913590)

GIMP sure takes a beating for being unfriendly. I disagree with that label, though. I think GIMP is easy to use and does a great job. Plus it is free. It's a very capable and easy to use graphics editor.

I think the real issue is GIMPs interface is just different. It looks a lot like PaintShopPro at least used to. I was a PaintShopPro user for some time and switching to GIMP was easy.

I like the GIMP. Anyone interested in GIMP ought to just download it and try it out for themselves and see what they think. Give it some time. It always takes a while to learn a different interface. I think people would be pleasantly surprised if they would just try GIMP for a while instead of being turned off that its interface isn't the same as Photoshop's.

Re:Just use the GIMP (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22913928)

It IS unfriendly. Why should we give ourselves hassle with headaches when we can just do what we always do, download a copy of Lightroom and Photoshop CS.

GIMP? Please, come back to me when they pull their arses from their heads. All "Its just different" bullshit you shout won't change a thing.

Gimp is udder cows balls until they get their act together and get a good Useability story. Meanwhile, stay in your mamma's basement.

Re:Just use the GIMP (2, Informative)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 6 years ago | (#22913948)

as a serious amateur in photography, can I let you in on a secret?

the 'new hotness' is raw; meaning 16bit color (per channel). not 8 but 16.

can gimp do that? not really.

and HOW many years has it been?

believe me, I'd like to see gimp win over pshop, but if they can't convert their base over to 16bit/channel color, no serious photog is going to consider gimp.

and yes, I'm a linux/bsd user by trade, but mostly am stuck to xp JUST because of pshop/cs2 (and its plugins such as neatimage and noise ninja, that also really aren't native on unix).

gimp is fine for informal work but nothing really serious. for serious work, I shoot raw and that NEEDS a full 16bit color in EVERY step. every one. just like audio editing, you need to keep high precision math all along the processing chain or the errors will accumulate. 8bit color is NOT good for edit (and edit and edit). its fine for viewing, but consider 8bit color an 'object format' or an output format and NOT an intermediate edit format!

Re:Just use the GIMP (1)

RCL (891376) | about 6 years ago | (#22914606)

Why not go for floating point color then? All the modern hardware is well optimized for floating point processing (SSE on CPU, CUDA on GPU etc etc). The memory impact is bearable given amount of RAM professional artists tend to have.

16 bit sucks :)

Even mid range DSLRs are moving up in bits (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 6 years ago | (#22915732)

Even the mid range digital SLR cameras are moving up the number of bits per sample. For example Canon's new EOS 450D [canon-europe.com]

has 14 bits per color for RAW (scroll down the the compression specs). And this is just the initial recording, not the editing steps where more is needed to avoid the errors. I wonder what their next high end camera will be like.

Re:Just use the GIMP (2, Insightful)

Solra Bizna (716281) | about 6 years ago | (#22914004)

I don't use GIMP on the Mac for two reasons.

  1. No nondestructive layer effects. I abuse those so hard in Photoshop it's not funny.
  2. Horrible, horrible OSX port. (Running under X11 is NOT a port.)

That said, I use and am satisfied with GIMP on Linux, simply because it's not that bad and there's no real alternative.

-:sigma.SB

Re:Just use the GIMP (1)

JernejL (1092807) | about 6 years ago | (#22914294)

IT LOOKS NOTHING LIKE PAINT SHOP PRO, paint shop pro being everything that was up to version 7 before jasc and corel killed its user interface.

Re:Just use the GIMP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22914454)

I thin you haven't been introduced to the concept of astroturf [wikipedia.org]. That's where 100% of the beating-up-Gimp comes from. It's done to keep points of view like yours buried, without which people would wake up and realize that they're paying $900 for hot air.

Re:Just use the GIMP (1)

morari (1080535) | about 6 years ago | (#22913828)

I give the GIMP a try now and then, the last one being about one or two years ago. At that time the program was still fairly far-off from being on par with Photoshop. Though of course you're right--This online Photoshop isn't likely to offer anything in the way of the full version either (Hell, Elements was bad enough), so you really might as well take a look at the GIMP. It's not a bad program by any means, but it is lacking a lot of the fnctionality that graphic designer have come to take for granted over the years. Of course, if you too are a graphic designer and find the GIMP a little lacking, I'd suggest just pirating CS3. :P

Re:Just use the GIMP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22914684)

Personally, I prefer Krita because I use KDE. However, when I have to use Windows, I use the GIMP.

Re:Just use the GIMP (2, Interesting)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | about 6 years ago | (#22915304)

Photoshop is much easier to use. I say this as a person who desperately wanted to drop photoshop in favor of the GIMP. I still have it installed, but for a hundred small reasons I can't come up with offhand it simply is not as easy to use. It's the standard problem with open source really, I'm sure there's a ton of features that surpass photoshop hiding somewhere in the GIMP, and that it's every bit as powerful. I don't have the hours necessary to adapt and discover those things, however, when I can just as easily use photoshop.

Suggested rewrite (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22913198)

Take a look at this section from the current license:

If no license agreement accompanies the Software, use of the Software will be governed by the Terms. Adobe grants you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable, nonexclusive license to use the Software for the sole purpose of enabling you to use the Services as provided by Adobe, in the manner permitted by the Terms. You agree that you will not decompile, reverse engineer or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the Software. Notwithstanding the foregoing, decompiling the Software is permitted to the extent the laws of the jurisdiction where you are located give you the right to do so to obtain niggers and spics for manual labor, information necessary to render the Software interoperable with other software, provided, however, that you must first request the information from Adobe and Adobe may, in its discretion, either provide such information to you or impose reasonable conditions, including reasonable fees, on use of the Software to ensure that Adobe's Intellectual Property Rights in the Software are protected. Unless Adobe has given you specific written permission to do so, you may not assign (or grant a sublicense of) your rights to use the Software, grant a security interest in or over your rights to use the Software, or otherwise transfer any part of your rights to use the Software.

So Adobe requires everything in writing now? I fail to see how this system is fair.

Re:Suggested rewrite (-1, Redundant)

X0563511 (793323) | about 6 years ago | (#22913292)

decompiling the Software is permitted to the extent the laws of the jurisdiction where you are located give you the right to do so to obtain niggers and spics for manual labor,

Racist - enjoy troll-mod hell.

MOD PARENT DOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22913306)

He's adding racist words to GP's post. I don't know why you'd want to do that...freak.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (1)

youthoftoday (975074) | about 6 years ago | (#22913364)

actually [s]he wasn't. The GP inserted them. Probably as a joke or something.

PS you left your caps lock key on.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (1)

jthill (303417) | about 6 years ago | (#22914322)

I think a theory I wish I'd bookmarked for attribution is correct: that the posts contain keywords intentionally inserted to prevent the surrounding discussion reaching people using filter software; that the posters are provocateurs infiltrated to portray the community as offensive and therefore negligible. Not bearing false witness against your neighbors seems to be missing from their value system.

Re:Suggested rewrite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22914288)

Redundant? I understand offtopic, but I fail to see how this is redundant as I am the only one to call this jerk out.

Do you understand what "redundant" means, or was this just an accident? I know the new moderation system lends itself to accidental mis-moderation...

redundant -adjective
1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix: a redundant style.
2. being in excess; exceeding what is usual or natural: a redundant part.
3. having some unusual or extra part or feature.

redundant. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved March 30, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redundant [reference.com]

I'm starting to wonder... (4, Insightful)

tech10171968 (955149) | about 6 years ago | (#22913260)

I'm starting to wonder if "someone at Adobe" really thought this was a bad policy? Or, is this a case where Adobe tried to sneak one past the public and got busted (because someone did the unthinkable and actually read the EULA)? You'll have to excuse my cynicism: dealing with the EULA-based trickery of another particular software company (whose name I won't bother mentioning) is precisely what drove my ass to FOSS in the first place. Sure it's free as in beer, but the "free as in speech" part is more important than people will ever give credit for, and situations like TFA are a perfect illustration of this.

Re:I'm starting to wonder... (2, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | about 6 years ago | (#22913944)


Or, is this a case where Adobe tried to sneak one past the public and got busted

Adobe, like any entity, doesn't act as one. They might like to think they all made some big great decision about The Best Approach, but that kind of thing, if it happens, takes place over a period of time.

The most likely scenario is some group at Adobe said "we need a free product to compete with other free products, otherwise we risk being irrelevant!" The marketing people decided what features it needed, the software guys worked on their end, the lawyers did what they do and tried to protect Adobe from liability. Finally the product was released. The lawyers didn't think about marketing, the marketing people didn't think about the legal side of things, and so you got this really dumb EULA that gave all the rights to Adobe, and none to anyone else. It's an effect that often happens at large companies do to compartmentalization, and not enough people looking across the aisles.

Re:I'm starting to wonder... (3, Insightful)

tech10171968 (955149) | about 6 years ago | (#22914196)

Now that I think of it, you really do make a good point; we've all seen what happens when a corporation gets so damned big that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is up to (think Sony, Motorola). But that doesn't take away from the fact that, whether this was a mere oversight or not, the trap is still there. That steaming pile of dung has still been left on the sidewalk just waiting for someone to step in it. Maybe you're correct in saying this was a mistake, but it's still the type of legal risk to which I'm no longer willing to knowingly expose myself.

Re:I'm starting to wonder... (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 6 years ago | (#22913952)

"Do not ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence". But given the track record of sooooooooo many big corporations, I think this bit of wisdom just doesn't apply here. Think about the lawyers which had to approve this. Malice or incompetence? Both?

Re:I'm starting to wonder... (1)

XenonChloride (718512) | about 6 years ago | (#22914228)

One might assume that "someone at Adobe" was inspired by the Acceptable Use Policy of ICQ http://www.icq.com/legal/policy.html [icq.com], which states:

[...] You agree that by posting any material or information anywhere on the ICQ Services and Information you surrender your copyright and any other proprietary right in the posted material or information. You further agree that ICQ Inc. is entitled to use at its own discretion any of the posted material or information in any manner it deems fit, including, but not limited to, publishing the material or distributing it.[...]
YMMV, but I agree with the GP: these conditions are absolutely inacceptable and in view of FOSS alternatives there's no good reason to give up your freedom!

Re:I'm starting to wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22915114)

is this a case where Adobe tried to sneak one past the public

Can't fool everyone all the time

Re:I'm starting to wonder... (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 6 years ago | (#22915468)

I'm starting to wonder if "someone at Adobe" really thought this was a bad policy?

I'm not sure why this is supposed to be such a bad policy. Has anyone here actually read the EULA in question and thought about the context?

Adobe is running a service in which people can upload photos and graphics, and part of this service allows users to put their photos into "public areas". So Adobe puts something in their EULA saying, "If you put your photos into our public area, then you're implicitly giving us license to distribute your photos."

They may have gone overboard with the language, but it seems obvious to me that this is Adobe trying to protect themselves from copyright infringement lawsuits.

Because think of the alternative: You put something on Adobe's site and make it public. If anyone downloads that photo, Adobe is now "distributing" those photos. If those photos are copyrighted and Adobe doesn't have some sort of license to distribute them, they're now guilty of copyright infringement.

Adobe's other EULAs don't make sense either (5, Interesting)

proxima (165692) | about 6 years ago | (#22913422)

Anyone who chooses to upload anything to a public forum/gallery should be aware that some of these websites will claim the right to do whatever they want with that material. Back in 2003, I even stayed at a hotel where the internet access had such a clause; they claimed the right to reproduce whatever you uploaded through the system. How enforceable are such terms? I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think we've seen a sufficient number of court cases come out of license agreements like these.

Adobe's not exactly known for their reasonable EULAs. Just take a look at the EULA for Adobe Reader [adobe.com]. This is software that Adobe is trying to get on all the computers it can. The license, however, permits only the installation on one primary computer and one mobile computer (note that "Permitted Number" is 1). I've gone so far as to contact Adobe customer service and ask them what's going on - this goes completely against their marketing policy. Amusingly, they send all their customer service responses via PDF over email. Their official response?

With regard to installing the software on more than two computers and
its use at the same time. I need to inform you that although Adobe
Reader is a free software, Adobe maintains its distribution rights.
Thus, as per Adobe policy there is no provision to use the software on
more than two computers simultaneously.

We apologize for the inconvenience this may cause.

Please note that, single-user Adobe branded product that is installed on
a computer at home, you can also install and use the software on one
secondary computer of the same platform at office or on a portable
computer. However, you may not run the software simultaneously on both
the primary and secondary computers.

It's clear that Adobe has no intention to actually try to enforce this restriction, but it suggests that organizations with computer labs and such are supposed to negotiate a volume license with Adobe. I think the Reader license is simply boilerplate recycled from other Adobe software, but it's clear that whoever is responsible for Adobe's licenses isn't in touch with what Adobe actually wants to have regarding its licensing (at least from a marketing perspective).

Re:Adobe's other EULAs don't make sense either (1)

Vellmont (569020) | about 6 years ago | (#22913752)

but it suggests that organizations with computer labs and such are supposed to negotiate a volume license with Adobe.

I doubt it. It sounds like Adobe just wants to maintain distribution rights. Essentially to squash anyone keeping copies to distribute. (And maybe get deals with any OEMs that want to have reader pre-installed on their computers). How many people in a computer lab, or small business read through the license of "free" software that's as common and trusted as Adobe Reader? (And would expect this strange, "you have to download it each time for each computer" implication?) Not many. I bet if you contacted the sales people they wouldn't even have a way to sell you a site license for reader.

I think the most likely scenario is just what you described, boilerplate re-use. The marketing people don't talk to the lawyers, and would never even think about multiple downloads.

Re:Adobe's other EULAs don't make sense either (1)

proxima (165692) | about 6 years ago | (#22914354)

How many people in a computer lab, or small business read through the license of "free" software that's as common and trusted as Adobe Reader? (And would expect this strange, "you have to download it each time for each computer" implication?) Not many. I bet if you contacted the sales people they wouldn't even have a way to sell you a site license for reader.

That's the whole point: the license is completely at odds with both de-facto policy by Adobe and common practice by users.

If the point was to keep people from distributing copies of Reader, why not just simply add a clause that you can only re-distribute it for your own, personal use or for the internal use of your organization? Perhaps the overkill in the license is the result of the way contract law seems to work (IANAL): if one part is found unenforceable, other parts can be salvaged. This gives lawyers the incentive to write more restrictive licenses and then selectively enforce the terms. Users end up just clicking through the pages and pages of legalese and ignore the terms, both reasonable and not. It's hardly an appealing outcome.

Re:Adobe's other EULAs don't make sense either (1)

Vellmont (569020) | about 6 years ago | (#22914514)


If the point was to keep people from distributing copies of Reader, why not just simply add a clause that you can only re-distribute it for your own, personal use or for the internal use of your organization?

You're implying the lawyers are thinking about marketing, or the marketing people are thinking about legal implications, or hell the marketing people even KNOWING that internal re-distribution is important for many organizations (sysadmin knowledge). To understand this problem you'd really need a basic understanding of all three parts of the problem.

How many people actually have all those skills, and more to the point, how many people in a company are actually DOING this kind of thing? I'd bet there's not a lot of cross-fertilization happening, especially at a large company like Adobe. When you divide up a product into parts and few people are looking at the whole this kind of thing is bound to happen.

Re:Adobe's other EULAs don't make sense either (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 6 years ago | (#22913762)

I would also like to remind people that anybody that uploads anything to some webserver that isn't their own, should expect that the information will be publically accessible, even if it's supposed to be private. MySpace and Facebook have both had problems with "private" photos being accessible. If you don't want the information to be accessible on the web, don't upload it.

Re:Adobe's other EULAs don't make sense either (1)

ByteSlicer (735276) | about 6 years ago | (#22914248)

Yeah, it's madness.
Basically they want you to download a fresh copy of the Reader installer each time you install it.
In a corporate environment, this makes no sense (downloading an identical binary for each computer and user).
At home, it makes even less sense, because if you install it on several of your own computers, it is not redistributing.

Re:Adobe's other EULAs don't make sense either (1)

proxima (165692) | about 6 years ago | (#22914308)

Basically they want you to download a fresh copy of the Reader installer each time you install it.

Actually, I'm not even sure you can do this. I'd be curious what the law would say (if anything) about whether downloading another copy constitutes another new license, and thus another "Permitted" computer.

Re:Adobe's other EULAs don't make sense either (1)

ByteSlicer (735276) | about 6 years ago | (#22914500)

Actually, I'm not even sure you can do this.
Probably not. But it doesn't cost them to try. A lot of EULAs have never been tried in a court of law. They just exist to scare the end user into doing what they want.

But they will never enforce this. They can never prove you downloaded the same binary twice or just copied it locally.

Photoshop.. slightly off topic (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22913432)

I'm just curious as to why they call it Photoshop Express, it doesn't really have anything in common with Photoshop at all. It's more like Adobe's mixing iPhoto + ImageShack.

Re:Photoshop.. slightly off topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22913522)

And Outlook and Outlook Express are about as similar...

It's the same reason that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22914244)

It's the same reason that they have products called Photoshop Elements and Photoshop Lightroom; it's all about the branding.

The Brand (1)

castrox (630511) | about 6 years ago | (#22915152)

It's all in the brand. In this case Photoshop which is well known. Free marketing. You see it everywhere..

Re:The Brand (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 6 years ago | (#22915504)

And why not Photoshop Online Storage (or something slightly snappier, but still descriptive)? I would have assumed this was a fast, light version of Photoshop, and not bothered. It's kind of like McDonalds naming the fries and drink from a bigmac value meal "BigMac Less Tasty".

Re:Photoshop.. slightly off topic (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 6 years ago | (#22915848)

Express means you more quickly get to the end of the list of things it can do.

Great! (1)

proxima (165692) | about 6 years ago | (#22913574)

It's great to see some outrage about stupid license agreements. There is widespread apathy about these agreements and their restrictions, leaving companies with the option to selectively enforce crazy terms if and when it is in interest.

On a semi-related note, the choice for many people is not to buy some expensive software or use the open source equivalent, but to illegally copy the expensive software or use its open source equivalent. Open source software does fairly well competing on features and stability alone, but the total lack of restrictions on use is something that is often overlooked, at least by home users. There may still be some misunderstanding about open source regarding use, though I hope that's fading. The availability of source is great, but frankly, that's not going to directly affect what home users can do with their software.

Rather than ignore licenses and laws we don't like, it's far more productive if people make an issue about them to get them changed. The outrage over AT&T's policies is one example of this (though that seems to have stalled, aside from an ongoing lawsuit), and this is another. Ignoring these terms and hoping they aren't enforceable is just a recipe for trouble. As a side benefit, if people become disgusted by closed source license agreements, open source software will look more appealing.

How do I even run it??? (1)

Doug52392 (1094585) | about 6 years ago | (#22913634)

It always tells me "Express Install not supported by this version of the Flash Player..." But I have the latest version of Flash for Linux installed...

Re:How do I even run it??? (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 6 years ago | (#22913896)

It's not really a web based service. Adobe has lied to you. But this is a category of companies they are a long term member of.

Re:How do I even run it??? (1)

tajmorton (806296) | about 6 years ago | (#22913912)

But I have the latest version of Flash for Linux installed...

Check that you really do have the latest flash. I got that error while using the latest flash-nonfree from Ubuntu, but it wasn't really the latest version. Go to about:plugins and check that 9.0 r115 (I think I had r45 from ubuntu before) is installed.

Re:How do I even run it??? (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | about 6 years ago | (#22915452)

It always tells me "Express Install not supported by this version of the Flash Player..." But I have the latest version of Flash for Linux installed...

There is a bug in several Linux distros (including Ubuntu) where installing the latest Flash fails silently and tells you you have the most recent when you do not. You need to install by hand. In any case, it does work if you have everything installed properly. I tested it with Flash Player 9.0.115, Firefox 3Beta4, and Ubuntu 8.04.

Homeland Security (1)

retech (1228598) | about 6 years ago | (#22913644)

.sarcasm>
They're just protecting the world from terrorists. You know those people who dupe the public into thinking that their personal information is their private information. And then they go and use it against them or, barring that, use it in a "fair use" marketing campaign and never pay for or ask the user for their permission. I believe Adobe will DO NO HARM just like all those other really cool companies with no ulterior motives that want to make the world one big hug fest.
./sarcasm>

Finally made me look (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 6 years ago | (#22913784)

This fianlly made me look at the site. I thought maybe this would be something I could use for some simple picture tweaking work without having to install some very likely to be very buggy software. But nooooooooooooooooo! I have to install some piece of crapware called Flash. I guess I'm back to hosting my pictures on my own web server.

Re:Finally made me look (1)

Zymergy (803632) | about 6 years ago | (#22913992)

If Microsoft had written it, it would have most likely required Microsoft's shiny new-fangled contraption called "Silverlight".

It also seems to run better if you let the Firefox No Script plugin to allow it to run.

Paint.net (1)

TheRain (67313) | about 6 years ago | (#22914208)

Who needs Photoshop Express when we have Paint.net? http://www.getpaint.net/ [getpaint.net] It's open source and a very good alternative to Photoshop. It even has a plugin that lets you code new filters and effects in C# within Paint.net.

Riiiggghhht... (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about 6 years ago | (#22914818)

From TFA:

We reviewed the terms in context of your comments - and we agree that it currently implies things we would never do with the content.

...so we thought up a new deployment model for our multibillion-dollar flagship product, and we asked Larry the helpdesk guy to type up a new EULA for it, and you know what? Larry just didn't get the idea we were driving at. So Harry in Shipping said, y'know what, guys? Let's ask Bernie the attorney how we could make the customer experience better...

rj

ICQ has similarly ambiguous Terms of Use for years (1)

apt-get moo (988257) | about 6 years ago | (#22914862)

When registering, you have to agree with the Acceptable Use Policy (http://www.icq.com/legal/policy.html [icq.com]), which states:

You agree that by posting any material or information anywhere on the ICQ Services and Information you surrender your copyright and any other proprietary right in the posted material or information. You further agree that ICQ Inc. is entitled to use at its own discretion any of the posted material or information in any manner it deems fit, including, but not limited to, publishing the material or distributing it.
Which could mean that you'd cede copyright on anything posted using an ICQ client. But nevertheless, do end-users complain?

Splashup is a competitor (2, Informative)

foniksonik (573572) | about 6 years ago | (#22915030)

If anyone is actually interested in using an online service for photoshop like work.... anyone?

There is a service out there called Splashup: linky link [splashup.com] which offers a lot more that Adobe's offering...

Intel did this years ago... (1)

teidou (651247) | about 6 years ago | (#22916054)

Anyone remember the Intel web-based graphics editor? There was a Slashdot story, I think around 2002, about their license agreement giving them rights to everything produced with it.

Wait, 6 years ago? Who am I kidding... nobody remembers anything that old anymore. I must be making it up.

Simple solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22916620)

Post some made up child porn. See if they claim ownership.

Google Terms - No Better than Photoshop Express? (2, Interesting)

rwmille (1264876) | about 6 years ago | (#22918292)

Is this any better than what Adobe just got caught doing? So basically any email or attachment I send though Gmail can be used by Google? Google Terms of Service http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en [google.com] "11.1 . . . By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...