>> But it's protected with a GPL-3.0 license. You can't just clone it, build, and sell it.
You absolutely can. You can absolutely rename it, re-brand it and sell it for whatever you like. Your interpretation is exactly at odds with the expressed wish of the GNU Project. (see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html)
The GPL is about software freedom, not price.
[As an aside I've heard arguments that it's "unethical" to sell a GPL program. Which is absurd since it gives the buyer more choices, not fewer. If I choose to compile a GPL program into a binary, and provide it to the market in a useful form (with source code of course), the market can then absolutely choose to pay me to do that. Red Hat is a multi billion dollar company built on completely this premise. To declare that "unethical" is like saying that selling food is unethical because everyone could just grow their own (ignoring the value added by picking, distribution etc.) The conclusion being that value is added at many points in the supply chain, not just the first one, and people are certainly free to pay for that value.]
>> I think the base idea is that it's unfair for one person to spend years on a product and someone else to sell it. It's unfair for the people who have donated to the team that has built it.
The team (or individual) that creates the product absolutely determines the license for that product. By _choosing_ the GPL license they are _explicitly_ allowing people to rebrand it and sell it. So, no, it's not unfair to do what _they_ have explicitly allowed you to do. By suggesting it is "unfair" you are asserting that either you are not aware of the actual provisions of the GPL, or the authors were too lazy to select a license that matched their actual intentions.
If you want to prevent people from selling the work, then don't use GPL, instead use a license that prevents people from selling your work.
>> The sense of unfairness prevents people from contributing.
The license will absolutely determine how interested people are in contributing to your project. Of course, as you have shown, that doesn't stop contributors from being very unhappy when they think a license "means" something, and it turns out it doesn't. That is on the contributor though, not the project author.
In summary, if you are going to care about what happens to your work after contributing, then please make sure you understand the actual license that project is using and don't just assume terms that are not in effect.
You absolutely can. You can absolutely rename it, re-brand it and sell it for whatever you like. Your interpretation is exactly at odds with the expressed wish of the GNU Project. (see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html)
The GPL is about software freedom, not price.
[As an aside I've heard arguments that it's "unethical" to sell a GPL program. Which is absurd since it gives the buyer more choices, not fewer. If I choose to compile a GPL program into a binary, and provide it to the market in a useful form (with source code of course), the market can then absolutely choose to pay me to do that. Red Hat is a multi billion dollar company built on completely this premise. To declare that "unethical" is like saying that selling food is unethical because everyone could just grow their own (ignoring the value added by picking, distribution etc.) The conclusion being that value is added at many points in the supply chain, not just the first one, and people are certainly free to pay for that value.]
>> I think the base idea is that it's unfair for one person to spend years on a product and someone else to sell it. It's unfair for the people who have donated to the team that has built it.
The team (or individual) that creates the product absolutely determines the license for that product. By _choosing_ the GPL license they are _explicitly_ allowing people to rebrand it and sell it. So, no, it's not unfair to do what _they_ have explicitly allowed you to do. By suggesting it is "unfair" you are asserting that either you are not aware of the actual provisions of the GPL, or the authors were too lazy to select a license that matched their actual intentions.
If you want to prevent people from selling the work, then don't use GPL, instead use a license that prevents people from selling your work.
>> The sense of unfairness prevents people from contributing.
The license will absolutely determine how interested people are in contributing to your project. Of course, as you have shown, that doesn't stop contributors from being very unhappy when they think a license "means" something, and it turns out it doesn't. That is on the contributor though, not the project author.
In summary, if you are going to care about what happens to your work after contributing, then please make sure you understand the actual license that project is using and don't just assume terms that are not in effect.