commercial usage if you pay get tax back and free! as for EULA read Microsoft say if no good max you get back is $5 US and don't for get you said yes to that.

I don't sleep well at night (ROTFLMAO)!!! Wink and a nod back at you.

I was debating whether to post again. I know I'll be seen as a know-it-all who wants to have the last word. I was naive in my first post. There are some things that are not said in the comments and the forums by way of showing respect to the good folks at the GOTD project. And maybe this one will be removed by a moderator. I don't expect that, but won't complain if it is.

Perhaps this is the real subtext of one or two of the comments here and I was just too naive too see it:
The real truth is likely that GOTD's EULA is just to placate the developers and they're not really concerned about setting up an agreement to allow users to be honest and still get some benefit from every piece of software. The real protections are, in almost all cases, the lack of updates, technical support, and ability to reinstall on another computer or after a reformat or program corruption. That's because mis-using the software is almost never going to be caught. If people steal, well, "wink, wink, nod, nod".

The one drawback that fits into the context of this discussion is that there's no way to shut off the endless discussion in the comments section every time commercial software is offered without saying the unsaid, which I'm guessing would be moderated out over there. And saying it might not work even then. Diva Regina, we're just going to have to learn to live with it.

Sad, but quite probably true. Sometimes I think the only benefit of being honest is it helps you sleep better at night. Though not always, especially after those who aren't honest rip you off. And they have no problem sleeping a night. What DO we tell our children?

Though not a USPTO specialist or copyright attorney, but just a lowly dweeb who uses a lot of software for business AND pleasure and creates some work product that may or may not be sold at some future date (it's hard to differentiate or keep track when you're as sloppy a record keeper as me), End User License Agreements (EULAs) strike me as being almost unenforceable except in blantant examples I wouldn't consider doing even IF someone paid me, i.e., reverse engineering, relabeling or bundling proprietary software and selling it (herein referred to as Big No No's) unless you obtain a commercial license and written consent to perform a Big No No.

At most, you risk getting a perfumed note filled with flowery phrases from an attorney that essentially requests in the nicest of nonconfrontational terms that you consider pulling down whatever it is his client claims is his or a group of ninjas will dismember you and your family and feed you all to pit bulls in Michael Vick's backyard.

Of course, if there's a clear and present danger (say, hidden watermarks or digital IDs), or an unmodifiable script (or even a script you CAN modify but which produces an end result close enough to the original that could be identified by the owner in a court of law), then failure to obtain a commercial license can haunt you in two ways -
a) disgrace if your client learns you're in violation with something you sold them when a cease & desist lands on THEIR desk;
b) a potentially costly lawsuit if a cease & desist ends up on your desk along with a big bill because your profits or noteriety make you a big fat target.

Most of the software given away here comes with a single-seat noncommercial license, and has a fairly secure wrapper that makes selling it under your brand or distributing a bundled copy to others in your office or on Ebay impractical if not impossible. Any work product you create from said software that doesn't pack some sort of previous owner's identification (copyright or watermark) is virtually impossible to identify, so it's doubtful any vendor will point an accusing finger at you. Who's to say which image editing or music conversion or flash video software was used... unless it carries a tag you don't know about? (e.g., in the GIF comments box, or a script remark - "made by Joe.com", or a readily identifiable presentation shell like for a website photogallery or Ebook, or a web beacon that phones home ala LoJack)?

IMHO, EULA's from small vendors or independent artists work on the honor system, and realistically, only those amongst us who actually produce something extremely unique that goes on to become sensationally popular are likely to be caught and outed and fed to pit bulls. If you're one of the lucky ones who does become successful off a particular piece of software, then you buy the bloody software as GAOTD and the vendor want... and give 'em glowing attributions.

If you're creating something on spec to show to a client, or just removing red eye or otherwise modifying a photo or creating a texture you'll use on a web site or in a book or something, it doesn't matter much... unless you have a very guilty conscience. (in which case you buy the bloody software) OTOH, if you rip some custom music off one of the games given away and package that with your own product and sell it, you clearly demonstrated intent to violate EULA and may the devil have mercy on any parts the pit bulls don't eat.

I'll let you all know if I get a polite letter from an ambulance chaser telling me my comments & opinions are in fact dead wrong and he's got a pit bull cage with my name on it.

Can't speak for Diva Regina, Angel, but I wasn't offended by what you said. Maybe I just didn't express it well, either. I think we'd both agree that it's a positive that many at least want to let their conscience be their guide here. You realize better than anyone that conscientious is more effective than any policing effort could be, short of having a police state (and, really, not even then). So, I just think it should be encouraged (I mean hopefully, by GOTD in this case, not by you.) whenever possible. I do agree with you, as I said in my first post, that it's unfortunate that they're probably just tilting at windmills.

As I said in another thread, with GOTD's license agreement, all your getting with commercial software is an unlimited demo. How much use is that really? If users can't make up their mind in 30 days, or by testing without the ability to permanently save, then the fault's with them. Although a few developers over cripple their demos, they usually have the same survival rate as dogs who chase cars. So, it's easy to see why some feel there's no benefit to a completely commercial only software under the current license.

As to the 60%, well, yeah, Diva's not been around long enough to see all the other things we fight about in the comments section. LOL. On the other hand, check out how much of Friday's comments were about the commercial issue. By the way, at 6'4", 265 I'm not sure if I qualify as most people's "little buddy". Maybe Shaquille O'Neal. :)

I take it from your sign off your still up here studying in the Bluegrass. Enjoy!

Thanks for the post watcher13 but my comment wasn't angled at anybody or anything. Let me reword or express my meaning.

Rules or Law's are only followed by the lawful even though they are written for all but there are always those that ignore them and do what they want. Thus comes my profession LOL.

The heading for this thread read "Suggestion to prevent 60% of negative comments on GOTD" and the thread creator post's about defining "Commercial Use" posing that this cause 60% of the negative comments. Since I've been coming to this site I haven't seen that statistic (not that I even keeping stat's on different types of negative comments LOL). But getting to the bottom line, no matter how a developer words or defines any restrictions for there software, its ultimately up to the end user and his/her integrity on what they use it for.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the words "so whats the big deal" but what my meaning was that since there is no way to "Police it" then why worry about the definition. I meant no disrespect for you or any other poster in this thread.

Thanks again "Little Buddy just to the south of me",

Archangel

Angel, knowing what you do for a living, I realize you're not an advocate of "anything goes". I know we can make a mountain out of molehill, but I'm glad some people are at least bringing it up. That, obviously, means they want the opportunity to do the right thing and still honor the spirit of GOTD. I always wonder about people (not you, I'm drawing from my life) that ridicule people for trying to be honest. I've done something honest or talked about correcting someone else's mistake that unintentionally benefited me, (not to say I've never strayed) like a significant change mistake, and have had people, sometimes the recipient, treat me like a fool. And I think, "if you had to have someone watch your kids for a long period of time, would you want someone with your ethics or mine"? Although, with some of these parents, I'm unfortunately sure it wouldn't matter.

If nobody here complained about this issue, then I'd be worried. Again, no disrespect to you. It's just that I'm at least comforted that this concerns some people. I'm sure you'd rather have it this way than the alternative.

You can make any disclaimer you like but its up to the end user to determine what he/she is using it for so whats the big deal?

Dictionary say Commercial, The exchanging of products or materials,buying & selling,advertising,so on.

I see the problem as people not wanting to put themselves in GOTD shoes. Not that I would necessarily do it the same way they do. But, newer users don't realize that GOTD mainly started out giving out more home use products than commercial products. Some even felt that it was the game giveaway, which used to be daily, that drove the project (was it first? I wasn't around in those days). In any case, GOTD wanted a simple business model, so it went for a "one size fits all" license. Everybody gets wrapped up in getting something for nothing, so, as more business software gets offered, more people complain. But, GOTD's purpose is to make money by providing this test marketing opportunity to any vendor that will agree to the proposition. As someone who worked in American broadcasting, we used the same model. We didn't turn down any advertiser unless they were so sleazy that, practically literally, we knew regulators were chasing them around and it was an obvious, arrest them on sight, scam. So GOTD doesn't turn down developers with business software any more than it wants to turn down crude developers whose software is practically universal panned. As long as the developer doesn't try to put in malware (yes, I know a few come pretty close, but I mean blatant hidden back doors and such), it will eventually appear on this site.

Certainly, I would like a dual agreement that would make some adjustment for commercial software, though I'm not sure how you would do that. But, I can see it from GOTD's point of view. Why rack your brains trying to come up with an agreement that wouldn't draw complaints from commercial developers, when you can just go with your one size fits all terms, and weather the storm when users complain. After all, it's not like home use developers are going to dump GOTD just because the commercial developers get an advantage. It's easier for GOTD to just let everyone get over it. Though you lose a few users, most will just wait until tomorrow.

or, offer more good stuff. Happens sometimes and the ratings are very high.

Agree public clarification would cut down a lot of negative comments. In addition I would also suggest (as I'm sure a thousand have before me) moving the comment box to the window that opens when one has downloaded, installed and registered the particular program. That way all comments and *ratings* as well would be from people who have it, have tested it, and can comment on any glitches or errors, and the programs effectiveness compared to what it claims to do. Instead what we usually have is the majority of ratings coming from people who dont download it because they believe they have something better or they just think the download is pointless or useless. As a result we've had ten days without a positive rated program now. Ten days. I find it impossible that all ten of those programs were either flawed or made false claims, which is what a negative rating should be for. Just my 00000010 cents worth. ;)

Well if you want to use it for profit making, then try it out see if it has all the bells and whistles you want then buy a full licence from the company.

Just use it for non-profit till then or if you are a non-profit organisation then usage should be o.k.

I only just downloaded to read the licence and it says:

Terms and conditions

Please note that the software you download and install during
the Giveaway period comes with the following important limitations:

1) No free technical support
2) No free upgrades to future versions
3) Strictly non-commercial usage

So no use to me whatsoever.

I believe the bottom line would be that the company's offering their wares can't allow every business in the world access to free softwares.
That would defeat the entire purpose of the "samples" we get.

Please post prominently on every giveaway (and in the readme files) precisely what is meant by the prohibition against "commercial use". Some interpret this to mean that the software can't be used in a business context, e.g. using a PIM to keep track of sales contacts. Some say it can be used by people in nonprofit organizations. Some say all use is okay so long as you're not directly making money from the use of the software -- others shoot back that it must mean that you can use it as long as your business is losing money, otherwise watch out!

This is silly. Please clarify what is meant, perhaps with applicable examples. Save us all some wheel-spinning.