[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20250714144716/https://putty.org...
The reporter was an unbearable asshole. They were not reporting but pushing and agenda through questions. They were definitely jaq-ing off and trying to push their own view that holding putty.org is unethical. I fail to see what research the so-called "journalist" was conducting.
I applauded Denis. There was no correct answer that could have been given here. The "journalist" just wanted a quote to attach to an article which was already written in their mind about how the site was unethical and "stealing" putty.org.
They are selling a commercial product by using the name of a popular open source tool, which on top of that is additionally a direct competitor. How "friendly" the site is designed is a factor but doesn't change that fact in the end.
Anyone has the right to buy a domain.
The site serves the purpose which you could criticise him for not serving:
It lets you download PuTTY.
putty.com sells jars with goo, and they don't provide links to the SSH client.
> They are selling a commercial product by using the name of a popular open source tool
You have to look with a historical perspective here.
He's giving away related software for free.
Sure, you can buy a commercial license, but almost nobody does.
> on top of that is additionally a direct competitor
I've heard the market for free Windows SSH clients is fierce!
> How "friendly" the site is designed is a factor
Yes, it certainly is.
It is a factor that spells out his intent quite clearly as one that isn't ill-willed.
He's putting the real PuTTY client first on the site.
He's not doing weird stuff like serving his own executables.
He's not showing ads.
He's disclaiming that his own software is not endorsed by PuTTY.
He's giving away similar software.
He's basically saying,
"Hey, now that you're here, I made an SSH client, too, you might like it!"
When you say OP, you mean on here, and so neither Bider nor the "journalist"?