
The Great Adobe Purge of ’19 - arthurfm
https://dazwallace.wordpress.com/2019/05/08/the-great-adobe-purge-of-19/
======
oldjokes
I remember people expressing concerns about this exact scenario back when
Oracle bought Sun.

Reminds me of a James Gosling quote: "during the integration meetings between
Sun and Oracle, where we were being grilled about the patent situation between
Sun and Google, we could see the Oracle lawyer's eyes sparkle"

~~~
jorvi
Hearing about the antics of Oracle always makes me think of a certain comic[1]

[1][http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TYqlwLYCeP4/TyAIYd3-VLI/AAAAAAAACb...](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TYqlwLYCeP4/TyAIYd3-VLI/AAAAAAAACbM/bzx_xixZznc/s1600/amazon-
google-facebook-microsoft-apple-oracle-organisational-chart.png)

------
blackoil
I understand the desire to not support older versions, but why just
marking/advertising them as `not supported`, insecure isn't enough. Is this
Adobe being unnecessarily aggressive or is there some other reason?

~~~
scrumper
Looks like a 3rd party licensing reason. Meaning, older versions of those apps
may include some component for which Adobe no longer has a license.

~~~
tinus_hn
Or it has turned out to infringe a patent, or turned out the party they
licensed it from wasn’t the real owner.

------
bluejay2387
I am holding on to my copy of Adobe Creative Suite 6 until I die.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
I'm expecting my Mac copy to stop working in 10.15 and I'm quite concerned
about it.

~~~
Someone
It isn’t a perfect solution, but the license agreement for Mojave
([https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOS1014.pdf](https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOS1014.pdf))
allows you to:

 _”install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the
Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac
Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for
purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software
development; (c) using macOS Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use.”_

~~~
Wowfunhappy
I may go that route, but none of the virtualization solutions are particularly
performant for macOS guests. I think I'd rather reboot into a Mojave
partition, if it comes to that.

------
bsenftner
I know a large number of people who maintain older Macs and PC specifically to
run older versions of Adobe Photoshop and Premiere. This is going to hurt the
freelance video editors very hard.

~~~
detritus
By ‘older’ do you mean pre-Creative Cloud?

If so, I can't imagine what Adobe could actually do to stop them? I figure the
idle legal threats seen so far (I know of two people who claim to have
received emails from Adobe - I'm awaiting one myself, as I still run 2014
Photoshop on this machine) is simply so they have a platform from which to
deny access to older versions as provided through CC.

Anything installed from disc is beyond their practical reach.

I'm really curious to know what's underlying this - if it is a third party
reason, I'm kind of flumoxed at Adobe's stance towards its presumably quite
loyal userbase!

~~~
ntucker
I want photoshop about once a year and I am literally still using photoshop 6
on windows. It's over 20 years old. Works fine, installs in about 5 seconds.

~~~
detritus
I'd happily use my disc versions of CS2 Illy and PS as they have all the tools
I need, but unfortunately I need to maintain compatability with client files
so I have a CC subscription.

Frankly, I hated paying as much as I did for Illy and PS here in the UK, which
compared to about the same cost as the full suite in the States, but I
complained sometime in the last year and now have the full suite for a mere
30p more than I was previously paying.

I still dislike their subscription model, but it now leaves a bit less of a
sour taste.

------
dev_dull
Does anybody know the oldest version of Photoshop you can buy and not license?
Can you still buy the software second hand?

~~~
rkeene2
What you are purchasing is a license, which may (and almost certainly does)
have limitations. One such limitation could be time (commonly done for product
trials, but not limited to such).

One could ALSO, assuming the owners wanted to sell it, buy PhotoShop but it
would likely be millions of dollars and there would probably be a more
economical solution to whatever problem you are trying to solve.

~~~
deogeo
You're conflating buying a copy with buying a license. The two are not the
same - e.g. you can buy a copy of a book, without buying the copyright itself.
The book is then _yours_ , not 'licensed'. That you don't have the right to
make further copies is a different matter.

~~~
rkeene2
Books and software differ.

[https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-
manual-1854-cop...](https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-
manual-1854-copyright-infringement-first-sale-doctrine)

~~~
deogeo
According to that very same link, they do not. You probably mean this passage:

> Most computer software is distributed through the use of licensing
> agreements. Under this distribution system, the copyright holder remains the
> "owner" of all distributed copies.

But this is not a difference in how copyright works for software - it's just
the description of the practice of contracts of adhesion. One could 'license'
a book the same way, or not include these agreements with software.

~~~
rkeene2
Do you believe that statement contradicts or supports my claim (below) ?

> What you are purchasing is a license, which may (and almost certainly does)
> have limitations. One such limitation could be time (commonly done for
> product trials, but not limited to such).

My assertion is that what you are purchasing in the Adobe Software case is a
license, what you are purchasing in your hypothetical book case is not. It is
something else, it is different.

~~~
deogeo
Yes, it's different in the Adobe Software case, because they _chose_ to attach
a license to it. They _could_ have just as well sold, not licensed, individual
copies, the same way that books are sold.

Books and software don't differ intrinsically - the business practices of
software _vendors_ differ from those of book vendors.

What bothers me is the pretense that the only possibilities are licensing
software, with all of the zero rights that usually entails, or buying the
entire copyright to the software, for, as you said, millions of dollars. It
borders on a lie of omission - it's perfectly possible to sell copies of
software - vendors just _choose_ not to.

~~~
rkeene2
So are we now both in agreement that my original statement (below) is
factually correct ?

> What you are purchasing is a license, which may (and almost certainly does)
> have limitations. One such limitation could be time (commonly done for
> product trials, but not limited to such).

> One could ALSO, assuming the owners wanted to sell it, buy PhotoShop but it
> would likely be millions of dollars and there would probably be a more
> economical solution to whatever problem you are trying to solve.

And we are _only_ in disagreement that the situation warranted listing
additional purchasing options, in context ?

~~~
deogeo
Agreed.

