Regarding 'Notepad++ v8.4.3 - Unhappy Users' Edition'
-
-
This is an outrage: I am in Canada and paid in Canadian dollars. Why is this refund being made in US dollars without any regard whatsoever to refund of my Goods and Services Tax of CDN$0.00?
Koff. Splutter.
{wipes spittle off monitor screen} -
Sooooo glad they offered the refund to the Happy Users too in 8.4.4. I was extremely upset that the refund offer was only available to the Unhappy Users… But finally, us Happy Users get the chance for a refund as well :)
In the end, I get double the refund and get to keep this awesome software to boot :P
Don Ho’s refund process was sooo fast, I received it before sending it.
-
Need refund in €uro.
Exchange fee is horrible.I nearly liked the unhappy users edition. Felt a bit, like it was made for germans.
The current ‘8.4.4 - Happy Users Edition’ is just wrong for me. I feel left out, even discriminated!Not even a depressingly dark theme does compensate. It´s deeper. It´s in the code. The fun while coding and accomplishing something great.
I can see it in the menues, feel it on the touchpad.
Not appreciating that.I am so unhappy, that I even think, I have to make a negative refund, so that this unpleasent, repellent development has no excuse to stop. Thank god for donations. They empower one to much harder hitting, well-founded critique!
Just wait for it!I´ll be back.
-
I just noticed that there is a convenient link to the refund form in 8.4.4, if you do
?->About Notepad++.
Man, the author must be SERIOUS about easy access to this refund for users!! Take advantage of it!!!
-
-
M Michael Vincent referenced this topic on
-
Excellent, applause. Some people take free software for granted and expect we bow to their specific requests. What a world.
Please consider an improvement tracking list, where donations would rank up specific items. Have them pay for what they want.
-
@audioscavenger - Not too long ago @donho refunded someone who had made a donation to the project and then posted a desire for a feature. Notepad++'s developer does not want the Notepad++ project to become to be a wage slave beholden to the highest bidder.
-
@audioscavenger
Agree with @mkupper that NPP itself is a terrible fit for any kind of pay-to-play model. This is inherently true of any FOSS project, but especially true given Don Ho’s personality.That said, a platform where a person could post a bounty to be collected by whoever implements a desired functionality in a NPP plugin (since plugins need not be FOSS themselves) is probably a decent idea.
-
@Mark-Olson said in Regarding 'Notepad++ v8.4.3 - Unhappy Users' Edition':
… plugins need not be FOSS themselves
See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins
When is a program and its plug-ins considered a single combined program?
[…]
If the main program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single combined program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins.
[…]
Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking.
And if we’re talking about .NET plugins, they even share the same window handle as N++!
-
@rdipardo How I have come to hate GNU’s “free software” license for all the things it leaves one not free to do.
I cringe a bit every time I see the license on my own plugin code. I have no problem with the compiled and linked DLL being distributed under the license that goes with the program it plugs into. I really would prefer my own work be licensed MIT, but I can’t figure out how to disentangle my work from the Notepad++ structure on which it depends. A statement that “my own contributions are licensed MIT, but it’s up to you to figure out which parts are independent of Notepad++ and which aren’t” doesn’t sound very helpful.
That said, note the wording in the statements you quoted: “we believe.” To have any effect, a copyright holder (i.e., the author of Notepad++) would have to choose to initiate legal action, and the court which heard that action would have to agree that the plugin was legally bound by the terms of the GPL. GNU doesn’t get to decide that; it would be contingent, I think (not a lawyer here) on whether the interface was considered copyrightable, and whether that made the plugin a derivative work.
-
