There are many different open source licenses but they all must comply with the Open Source Definition - in brief: the software can be freely used, modified and shared. Programs released under this license can be used at no cost for both personal and commercial purposes. Open Source software is software with source code that anyone can inspect, modify or enhance. Freeware products can be used free of charge for both personal and professional (commercial use). They will lose customers and goodwill, and if tech Youtubers catch on to this and ‘expose’ it, it could do significant reputational and financial damage to them.Freeware programs can be downloaded used free of charge and without any time limitations. ![]() I’d get it if it was a 3.5 release, after everything was performing at least as well as the previous 2.6 version, but it’s not even close. It’s a really negative PR move.įurthermore, why would anyone pay to be able to receive updates to 3.x when the newer versions perform much, much worse, are less stable, and have worse workflow than the previous version? Another video software company got into trouble recently for pulling a similar stunt, faced a lot of backlash, got a ton of bad PR, and lost a ton of goodwill/loyalty from their customers in the process.Īll it takes is a Youtube channel with a decent audience to bring light to this sort of thing and it really hurts the reputation of the company. If I was entitled to version 3, but not 3.1, why was I prompted to update without a warning that I wasn’t entitled to that update? Why was I offered the update at all? Why wouldn’t users entitled to version 3 receive all update to version 3? Especially given the poor state that version 3 released in, and is still in!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |