Serves me right for installing proprietary software!

[hazel]

As my old external CD writer has packed up, I finally bit the bullet and bought myself a new one which writes both CDs and DVDs. It came, as these things always do, with a Nero CDRom but I noticed with surprise that this included something called Nero Linux 3. I had no idea such things existed. Of course it was a binary package, present in both .rpm and .deb formats. Out of curiosity I installed the .deb on Debian Lenny using dpkg -i.

It's gtk-based and has quite a nice user interface. But it has a EULA as long as your arm (remember EULAs?) No reverse engineering, no copying, no this, no that...

Anyway I launched it and made a backup disc for my main data directory (which worked OK) and then I noticed something sinister. This is a trial version, defective by design, and only usable for 15 days. To turn it into a permanent version, you need to enter a new serial number. And do you think I could find one on the packaging? Nope!

You can buy a serial number on the Nero website; a reasonable setup for people who want to download and try out some commercial software and then pay for it if they like it. But software that comes bundled with hardware is supposed to be permanent. It's part of your purchase after all. If they think I'm going to pay extra to use it, they can think again.

Of course I emailed their support to make this point and got back one of those automated answers created by softbots that refer you to several answers on a FAQ, none of which are really relevant. It also gave a different support mailbox to which I have now transferred my query. Whether I'll get any joy out of them I don't know.

Fortunately there are other ways to burn CDs on Linux; at a pinch I can go back to using wodim/cdrtools. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth all the same.

[techieMoe]

Have to say, that does suck. I've bought numerous DVD writers and they usually come with a copy of Nero for Windows, and it's a full product. In Linux, I prefer to use the burners included with whatever distro I have installed. K3B is my all-time favorite.

[Miller88]

Nero was at the top a few years ago, seems there is better free (proprietary) stuff out there now for Windows.

Dell does something strange. They include a version of Roxio for free but it needs a license key that they include. Is Roxio that great that I'm going to put it on all of my friends' computers? Is that what they are thinking?

I don't have a Linux machine with a cd drive so I can't comment on that

[MASONTX]

I had Nero on a windows machine, and burned several coasters. Now that I am on Ubuntu, I use the included burner and seldom have a problem. That said, I agree that it is frustrating to have programs of one sort or another come with equipment only to find it is a trial version.

[D-cat]

I find Roxio (formerly Adaptec EZCD creator) is roughly parallel to K3B in usage. As a full time Linux user, I have no need for such proprietary software any more, but it's useful to know when working on other people's Windows based computers. It is a good product (although I think 7.5 dropped the ball in reliable default burn settings, but that was a while ago now).

I hated Nero years ago and I still don't care for them. This certainly hasn't done any favors for my opinion. Why is it when it comes to Linux commercial software companies can't help but to shoot themselves in the foot? What makes any of them think I'm going to buy a license for the Linux version of the same substandard product they give free usage for in Windows, especially when I already have well established no-cost alternatives?

[hazel]

I was right! I just got an email from Nero which confirms my suspicions:

Dear Mr. Russman,

Thank you for your e-mail and your interest in our software.
The current demo version of Nero Linux 4 can be downloaded from the Nero website using the following link:
Nero - Nero Linux 4 - Trial version
Nero trial versions are fully functional during the trial period.
You can purchase a full licence on our web shop to continue using Nero Linux 4 after the trial period has ended.
Nero - Buy Nero products online

Should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Yours sincerely

Claudia Rausch
EMEA Inside Sales & Customer Care

In other words they expect me to pay for a product that I thought I had already bought. And they can't even get my gender right. What a**holes they are! To think that Windows users have to put up with this sort of crap all the time; I'm glad I escaped to the free world.

[MASONTX]

I'm with you Hazel. The free open source burner Brasero does everything I need. If I run into a limitation, there are always more linux options out there, also for free.

[Hal343]

I use both K3b and Brasero. I find that Brasero has improved over the last 3 years, and now works as well as K3b.

[hazel]

I'm puzzled by the legality of all this. Nero Linux is based on gtk, and gtk is free software. I assume that the back-end, which is called nerocmd, and which does the actual burning is built against glibc.

Now I was under the impression that if a program uses GPL'd code, that program must itself be distributed under the GPL and cannot be proprietary. You can sell it of course for whatever the market will bear, but I don't see how you can slap a restrictive EULA on it.

Can someone enlighten me?

[GNU-Fan]

The GNU glibc is licensed under the Lesser GPL (LGPL), not the ordinary GPL.
Linking against it dynamically does not require the program to become GPL'ed.

From Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)

Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library.

This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem for them, only for us.

What is more, there is also the GPL linking exception, which allows even for static linking:
GPL linking exception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(I don't know if this applies here)