RicodJour writes:
On Apr 30, 5:10 pm, (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

Actually, since such a "white lie" would deprive the vendor of
honest revenue, it's more like telling the clerk at the grocery
store you've got black pepper in the spice bag, when instead you have
saffron threads.

In other words, you have advocated theft.

It's more of a reclassification. Your average home woodworker using
one or two "advanced features" once in a while is not the same as
someone who is running a business off of it. In a rational world all
licenses would be on a per use basis or sliding scale. It's just too
cumbersome to do that - for now.

That's your opinion. However, the guiding law for setting a selling
price is that the seller and purchaser must agree on terms. If they
don't (or can't) agree on terms, and one side misrepresents itself
to take advantage a promotion that the seller never intended that the
buyer be eligible for, then the buyer defrauded the seller.


The .edu email address requirement is clearly absurd. How someone
enrolled in a hairdressing school or studying to be a chiropodist is
more deserving of a break on the price of a 3D modeling program than a
garage/basement (guessing) woodworker not using it for profit, I do
not know. You seem to - please explain.

It's pretty simple - most software that can be used professionally is
often offered to students at a discount for two reasons:

1) Students, usually on a limited budget (more now than ever) can't
afford full price
2) Students, having learned the software in question, will often
pull that software into a subsequent employer, at commercial
rates.

A win for both the student and the company selling the software.

And your strawman argument about hairdressors and chiropodists is
completely bogus, as they're not the target market for the software
in the first place and would have no interest in it (I can just
see hairstyling 3d frame models :-).

scott

(and if you really want free CAD software, take a look at qcad (linux only, tho)).