angros47 Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Recuva is a very useful tool; also, as far as I know, it's the only free recovery tool for windows: all competitors offer only crippled trialwares, and it is a nightmere when you have a not working system, and need to download quickly a recovery tool. My suggestion is: since Recuva is already free, why not releasing source code, too? It will have many advantages, IMHO: - some users feel that a freeware is less powerful than a commercial software: instead, an open source tool is perceived as a tool for nerds, really powerful. - an open source Recuva would allow third-party developers to write plugins and extensions: i.e. a plugin to identify and reconstruct a specific file format, or a plugin to work on special devices (like magneto-optical drives) - an open source program would be easily ported on other platforms (Mac, Linux) - with a GPL license, all improvements added by third-party developers have to be GPL, too, so Piriform would be able to integrate the best new features in the official version - An open source Recuva would be listed on all sites promotin free software (and it would be easier to find, since it would be the only easy-to-use recovery tool in its category): that would bring more users to Piriform. - The availability of source code would help many programmers to understand better how file systems and drives work, and that would help all software development In that way, I think that Recuva could become THE recovery tool, and overcome all competitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Andavari Posted November 14, 2009 Moderators Share Posted November 14, 2009 All very good points and I always prefer open source software myself. That and if it were to go that route it could possibly get funding from companies that financially support OSS. However in the end it's all up to Piriform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethec Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Only problem : backspaceware. http://blog.getpaint.net/2007/12/04/freewa...eware%E2%80%9D/ Piriform French translator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angros47 Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 Only problem : backspaceware.http://blog.getpaint.net/2007/12/04/freewa...eware%E2%80%9D/ I understand, this is the most common objecton against open source. Anyway: - most, if not all, open source licenses state that you have to keep intact the credits: backspaceware is illegal, and Piriform could sue who does it - If the "thief" leaves the program open sourced, even without credits, for Piriform would be easy to recognize the code anyway, and sue him; if the "thief" closes the program and try to sell it, he won't be able to compete with the original, that has the same features, but is free. - actually, backspaceware can be done even witho no source codes, by an hex editor or a program like "resource hacker" - who would be really interested in doing backspaceware? It's not like cracking a trialware, to unlock crippled features. You can already download the full-working program for free, you can use it, you can redistribute it ... what advantage would you gain by removing the credits? Only a lamer could try to steal it, and if he is such a lamer won't go anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethec Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 There are people doing backspaceware because they want other people to think they did the program, and then have credit for it. Piriform French translator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angros47 Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 There are people doing backspaceware because they want other people to think they did the program, and then have credit for it. As I've said, it can be done even without source code (maybe it's even easier than recompile the program), so where is the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethec Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 It's waay easier to do backspaceware if you have the source code (because you need to change all names and images) As I've said, it can be done even without source code (maybe it's even easier than recompile the program), so where is the problem? Piriform French translator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angros47 Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 It's waay easier to do backspaceware if you have the source code (because you need to change all names and images) Ok: let's say that someone has done backspaceware, and released an "unofficial" version, with fake credits; what could happen? Either: -he won't be able to widely spread the software: he gives it to a few people, and no more; so, he won't harm anyone, and soon he will be forgotten. -he succeeds, and release a program similar to Recuva: soon, someone will notice it, and will tell to Piriform: since the compiled code is nearly identical, Piriform could sue the thief (that will have to pay). The thief, maybe, will try to say that he wrote the program (he has the source code), but Piriform will be able to prove that he lies, because only Piriform has ALL the old versions, the unreleased alpha codes, the discarded pieces.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethec Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Yes. But I don't think Piriform has lots of money to pay lawyers. Piriform French translator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angros47 Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 Yes. But I don't think Piriform has lots of money to pay lawyers. This is not a real problem of open source, imho; even if a lamer changes only the installer of the current program, and starts selling it claiming that it's his work (even if in the executable code there are still references to Piriform), to sue him a lawyer would be needed. I understand your doubts, but I think that a closed source wouldn't be a big defense; maybe it could slow down backspaceware, but nothing more; think about shareware/trialware programs: they are closed, and cracking them is harder than simply changing credits; anyway, most of them have been cracked few weeks after the release. Instead, most of the open source projects do not suffer of backspaceware, even if it's easier to do than cracking a shareware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr don Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Ok: let's say that someone has done backspaceware, and released an "unofficial" version, with fake credits; what could happen? Either:-he won't be able to widely spread the software: he gives it to a few people, and no more; so, he won't harm anyone, and soon he will be forgotten. -he succeeds, and release a program similar to Recuva: soon, someone will notice it, and will tell to Piriform: since the compiled code is nearly identical, Piriform could sue the thief (that will have to pay). The thief, maybe, will try to say that he wrote the program (he has the source code), but Piriform will be able to prove that he lies, because only Piriform has ALL the old versions, the unreleased alpha codes, the discarded pieces.... The real issue here are mainly these, from what I can see. Going open source sounds nice, but here are some worries: - Donations may be more limited. Although free, isn't it nice to donate to people who spend time fixing things? - There may be less control over what goes on in the programs they produce. - Global developers may contribute quality coding, but it may increase time to review these codes for possible malware style behavior before approval. It is definitely interesting, & it would be so neat to see where an "open source" clone could go with this, if they were granted permission. It would be really interesting to see who had the superior product in the end, Piriform, or Open Source developers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marmite Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Open source doesn't have to mean distributed development. But it does give visibility to what's there and as angros47 said originally it does allow people to develop add-ons and extensions. - Donations may be more limited. I don't see why. - There may be less control over what goes on in the programs they produce.- Global developers may contribute quality coding, but it may increase time to review these codes for possible malware style behavior before approval. Not if the development of the core product is kept to the current team. Here are two very good examples of open source products: TrueCrypt file encryption and Free Download Manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spitfire Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Lot of very good programs are Open Source and gone so far that any backshit would not even survive 2 days! Must i quote them? Gimp, MPC - HC, FileZilla, FFDshow, Mumble, Open Office... etc.. Piriform is very famous with CCleaner, and going open source is a good way to be even more known! Recuva is great, but recuva is not complete. Going open source would increase the amount of work done every day for it, and would speed up his growing. Going open source would increase the amount of donations for it, as people who like freewares, LOVE opensource AND free softwares. I prefer donate for "la cause" than for a private group that may switch to selling products (a lot already done this)! If you are always looking darkness, you'll never see the light behind. http://sourceforge.net <<< Here is the light! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireryone Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (another post resurrection, a few of these recently) Open Source is a nice idea and +1 to every company that does, but I don't see piriform doing this. Piriform is currently known to have a collection of comparably safe utilities, they will want to keep this view an not let unsafe addons or mods mar this view. I'm not against Recuva or the other programs going Open Source but understand why they may want to keep a tight hold on their hard work and programming. fireryone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ident Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 iobit would like thsi No fate but what we make Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now