Reader Sovanna called my attention to the rather unusual licensing requirements for thesaurus and dictionary program Word Web http://wordweb.info/free/licence5.html. You can use the program for free, provided that you "take at most two commercial flights (not more than one return flight) in any 12 month period". Otherwise, you have to pay up $39 for the Pro version after a 30-day trial. While it's nice to try and encourage everyone to reduce their carbon emissions, this seems to me a pretty ham-fisted way of going about it. For one thing, it makes no allowance for the fact that flying once a year is hardly the definition of excessive travel, especially in a large country like Australia (or the US, come to that). The claims in this context that the pricing is designed to "allow relatively non-wealthy people to use the program free of charge" seems disingenuous to say the least. Nor (as Sovanna points out) does the policy account for whether you try and offset your carbon credits from flights — someone who flies regularly but does that is arguably more actively managing their impact than someone who only hits the skies once a year but spends the rest of the time using their car. So what's to be done? I'll grant you $39 isn't a lot of money, but with that kind of attitude I reckon there are better approaches. A freeware alternative such as previously-mentioned Enso Words leaves you able to donate those funds to the environmental charity of your choice. But have I got the wrong end of the green stick? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Does An Environmental Bully Software Licence Make Sense?
Trending Stories Right Now
Speculative fiction is the literature of change and discovery. But every now and then, a book comes along that changes the rules of science fiction for everybody.
I drive a lot of different vehicles when I need to get around, but I'm always a little worried when it's time to fill them up. Will something happen if I use 91 instead of 95, or vice versa? This thread at StackExchange answers the question.