
Open-Source Projects Are Getting Ripped On Amazon - bwag
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTAyNg
======
trotsky
_Butterfly Media is also ripping off the popular Scribus layout/publishing
program too. The company is reselling Scribus as "Desktop Publishing Studio"
(link). They aren't just taking the programs and reselling it, but even their
screenshots shown on the Amazon product page are ripped._

Silly phoronix.

 _Scribus Copyright 2001-2008 Franz Schmid and rest of the members of the
Scribus Team. [...] This program is free software; you can redistribute it
and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version._

Brush up on the GPL there lads. You're perfectly welcome to sell a copy of a
GPL program as long as you otherwise comply with the license.

Perhaps next phoronix will break the story of Redhat charging money for the
Linux kernel.

~~~
bad_user
While the code is usually GPL, for games the artwork is many times CC non-
commercial (as it happens with "Dangers of the Deep", one of the games
mentioned).

Trademarks can be involved as well: e.g. you cannot resell Firefox and still
call it Firefox.

Even the screenshot for Inkscape is a ripoff of a tutorial:
<http://howto.nicubunu.ro/inkscape_face_draw/> (and the license is breached
because there is no attribution made).

So in case you want to sell open-source software, make sure you consult a
lawyer ;)

~~~
gst
> Trademarks can be involved as well: e.g. you cannot resell Firefox and still
> call it Firefox.

This shouldn't be an issue here, as they've changed the names. They, e.g.,
sell Scribus as "Desktop Publishing Studio".

~~~
bad_user
In case you weren't paying attention, the branding was only changed in the
Amazon listing and maybe the physical packaging: I haven't bought any of
those, but considering that they just blurred / cut the window names from
those screenshots, I assume they didn't do anything else.

Branding an application with a different name (i.e. removing all references to
the old name from the code-base) takes effort and it's not just a matter of
changing the main window title. Just ask the Debian people that rebranded
Firefox to IceWeasel.

~~~
JonnieCache
_> Just ask the Debian people that rebranded Firefox to IceWeasel._

Or the people who rebrand redhat as centos for that matter. I bet it takes a
little more than a find-and-replace-in-project.

~~~
Herring
If you don't modify anything, you can still sell it, right? Take firefox for
example - i thought Mozilla was objecting to the additions & changes.

~~~
bad_user
Depends on the trademark licensing available of course.

In case of Firefox: no, you cannot sell it without written permission while
branded as "Firefox".

From <http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html> ...

    
    
          You can't put the Mozilla Mark(s) on anything that you 
          produce commercially (whether or not you make a profit) -- 
          at least not without receiving Mozilla's written permission. 
    

But what you can do:

    
    
          distribute unchanged Mozilla product(s) (code + config) for 
          each platform downloaded from www.mozilla.com 
          or www.mozilla.org as long as you distribute them 
          without charge
    

And the reasoning for this, as explained:

    
    
         In addition, on an all too frequent basis, we receive 
         reports about websites selling the Mozilla Firefox browser, 
         using the Mozilla Marks to promote other products and 
         services, or using modified versions of the Mozilla Marks. 
         The problem with these activities is that they may be 
         deceptive, harm users, cause consumer confusion, and 
         jeopardize the identity and meaning of the Mozilla Marks.
    

Of course, many open-source projects don't even have registered trademarks,
but (I am not a layer so take this as an opinion) ... even unregistered
trademarks are protected and I think you can still sue successfully somebody
if it brings harm to the project's image.

------
julian37
And innocent phrases are getting ripped on Phoronix: such as the words "free
software", which on mouse over produce a popup that asks me to "Earn Cash
Completing Surveys".

More on topic, to the people who are saying that GPL users had it coming:
offering the binaries without the source code is a violation of the license
(GPLv3 section 6, GPLv2 section 3). And even if they would somehow sneakily
satisfy that clause, you've got to admit that renaming the software and
selling it without so much as a nod to the original developers is sleazy to
say the least.

------
EGreg
Technically, it's not illegal to sell a GPLed application. The GPL attempts to
confer true freedom to whoever has the code. They may do anything with it...
except one thing: they can't make it (or any derivative version of it) non GPL
and take away the freedom from whoever else gets the code.

The question is, should people be prevented from charging money for something
that is GPLed and someone else can get it for free? I guess the answer is no.
After all, if these guys aren't violating the GPL, anyone can download the
program and then offer it on Amazon for a dollar, undercutting them.

The real question is, can you make restrictive trademarks etc. around a fork
of a GPLed product? I think you are legally allowed to. In this case, you can
actually go after people who try to undercut you, on trademark grounds. And if
that is the case, you will get a bunch of people who don't realize that there
is a free version called something else. Business opportunity for unscrupulous
people right there! Heh... they can claim to give "support" for their
trademarked version of the program.

Of course, if the original software is licensed under MIT, BSD or something
that doesn't enforce propagation of the license, then the person selling a
fork of the program can do whatever they want. This happens all the time.

------
yason
For GPL code, as long as they provide the modified and complete source code
along with their own versions, everything should be fine.

Artwork and other works not govered by GPL is of course another issue, however
I believe that in most cases those are often licensed similarly to GPL (GNU
Free Documentation License?).

Of course, it might be that they didn't include the source code or forgot to
attribute the original authors. At least that would constitute ripping.

------
mwg66
Incredibly poor article from a journalistic perspective; it leaves me
wondering if the author actually understands the topic for which he is
commenting.

However, there is substance to this and almost certainly violations taking
place. The community is all the better to know about.

------
Pinckney
The remarks about commercial distribution of the Danger from the Deep CC By-
Nc-Nd assets do make me wonder if the Non-Commercial clause can stand up in
court.

Consider, by analogy, that I produce a product FOO, which I sell for $1 as a
download. It includes a license prohibiting commercial distribution, but this
license is not visible to the consumer before purchase and download. Supposing
the purchaser simply stores the software, but does not run it nor agree to the
terms of the license. They burn it to a CD, delete the original copy, and sell
it for $10. They have never been exposed to the license, so Vernor v. Autodesk
does not apply, and their redistribution is protected by the first sale
doctrine.

Suppose instead that I distribute BAR freely under the same license and
conditions. The reseller, having lawfully downloaded a copy of the work,
burned it to CD, deleted the original work, but having never been exposed to
the license, will also argue that they have a protected right to resell the
work, under the first sale doctrine.

The question: Does the First Sale Doctrine distinguish between works that are
sold, and those that are distributed freely?

~~~
EGreg
I guess the answer is basically this: under case law and statutory law, the
person can resell one copy of it for any price if they have never been exposed
to the license. However, the judge/jury may not believe that is likely. They
may invoke some tort or delict saying that you should at least look at a
work's license before selling it to someone else.

In any case, you cannot make a copy of the product and must resell the
original product which you bought, due to copyright law. Personally, I don't
think copyright models reality really well, so there will be lots of these
problems.

------
RyanMcGreal
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain this to you:
<http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/10/19/the-point>

------
bugsy
Ah, I keep hearing from GPL advocates that anyone is "allowed" to sell GPL
software.

And then when someone does it, like in this article, there is a big fuss.

~~~
chii
obviously, gpl advocates don't want other people to make money on the work
from the sweat of their brows.

~~~
sciboy
Then the gpl is a bad choice for them as a license?

~~~
JoachimSchipper
It does make it harder to make money from your work, and it's the closest you
can get to that while still using a (well-known) open source license. I have
no doubt that lots of people are indeed using the GPL for that purpose; look
at pretty much any GPL-vs-BSD debate for further proof.

That said, yes, the GPL doesn't actually make it impossible to turn a profit.

