Open-Source Projects Are Getting Ripped On Amazon

[blackiwid]

It makes a Software more popular, so its good, but making transparent from which source you forked your project should be done? I don?t know the terms from gpl on this point.

But if lets say photo maker is very successfull. Companys see that and maybe there dont work only stupid people and they see that its a nearly 1:1 copy from the less popular original projekt. So they maybe try to make a own copy and ask the developer for 2-3 features to add because they are the most competent on that job. So they get maybe even money back form such deal. But opensource is at least by this projects not the biggest point, the biggest motivator to release software under such lisense is maybe that you want that other people can have something from your work, and maybe so that you can share work with others, on projects that are to big to do with one or very few people. So maybe somebody who uses that software finds the gpl-txt or sourcecode on the cd, and when they want some small change on the programm they just do it and then releasing their version of the programm, and the orignal project or somebody else can push from that again.

or they "share it with others because it is illigal" (they think it is ^^).

Like the potatos here in europe, the farmers first did not want to use it, but then a king told some guards to strongly watch over a small field but do some sleeping or looking away then the farmers stole it and culturated it.

[blackiwid]

Sorry some mistakes (its late here ^^):

wrong: But opensource is at least by this projects not the biggest point,
right: But money...

wrong: and the orignal project or somebody else can push from that again.
right: and the people from the original project or somebody else can PULL from that.

[Havner]

Well innocent until proven guilty I say. I'll leave the guilty until proven innocent views to China.

You know you are playing devils advocate? But theoretically you are right. So lets play with a quoting again.

Orbiter terms (same page you quoted):

You will not remove or alter any copyright or license notices contained in the software and documentation, or remove or alter any identifying elements, including splash screens and logos, or try to hide or reassign in any way the name or origin of the software or any of its components.

Amazon Orbiter page:

COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Items contained on this disc are supplied under the terms of the GNU License, the GNU Lesser General Public Licences (LPGL) or are in the Public Domain.

Besides I don't see Orbiter logo there and it's being advertised as a "Space Shuttle Flight Simulator" (even though Orbiter is mentioned in the description). Is this enough for you?

I didn't quote the previous short version from FAQ so it could be questioned whether this guy is right or not, I just did that to make the post shorter. For anyone thorough enough it's obvious that the guy is braking the law with Orbiter.

[screwgoth]

I noticed this story today morning.
Now, from what I can see Butterfly Media is sort of, to put it crudely, "masking" the products as their own and basically selling open source projects.

I am in the retail open source space as well. My venture http://www.opensourcedeal.com currently sells just CDs and DVDs of FOSS Distros, but eventually plans to be a one-stop-shop for all things Open source.
I spent quite some time reading up on opensource.org and fsf.org and I know for sure that this is perfectly legal. Isn't it ? Will I be falling in the Butterfly Media category ?

[glxextxexlg]

Ardour as "Music/Audio Editing Tool-kit"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...D%20Trade%20UK

Ahahahaha! The guy not only cloned ardour + its web presentation images, but added an image of mixxx application (a popular opensource dj software) as well! So I think this one is special with its double insolence. Wonder if they sell them together!. And the support is excellent from the start! Ardour doesn't work on windows systems, never has been... Woooooohooow

[glxextxexlg]

But wait! Its tripple insolence! sorry that I couldn't see it. Theres also a lmms (linux multimedia studio) image seen in the presentation images

[misiu_mp]

Technically legal?

Apart from the clear violations of some art works, do they comply with all of the sections of the applicable licences? Such as offering to supply the source code (in case of GPL)? Do they retain the copyright notices in the programs and files in the distributions?

[deanjo]

you think they're not for no particular reason.

That is not the case at all, since there are provisions made in there license that imply that exceptions may be granted by the software creator that this may be the case here. It is a reasonable doubt unless evidence shows that this is not the case. The only way of acquiring such evidence would be to ask if such an exemption was granted from both involved parties. No such evidence of if an exception has been granted has been provided either way.

It is like when hunters want to hunt on my land. I have "No hunting or trespassing without permission of owner" signs posted around my fields. Some hunters I grant permission when they ask if they may do so (actually more like any hunter that firsts asks I will grant permission to after laying down some rules that they must agree to).

Now to someone who is looking in from the outside and sees a hunter on my land they may wrongfully assume that the hunter is breaking the law as they do not have the knowledge that an exception has been granted.

[deanjo]

You know you are playing devils advocate? But theoretically you are right. So lets play with a quoting again.

Orbiter terms (same page you quoted):



Amazon Orbiter page:


Besides I don't see Orbiter logo there and it's being advertised as a "Space Shuttle Flight Simulator" (even though Orbiter is mentioned in the description). Is this enough for you?

I didn't quote the previous short version from FAQ so it could be questioned whether this guy is right or not, I just did that to make the post shorter. For anyone thorough enough it's obvious that the guy is braking the law with Orbiter.

See above post.

[Havner]

See above post.

Sorry, this doesn't make a case for me. You're basically saying that when I see a burglar in my neighbours flat everything is fine because they _might_ have given him permission to steal from them.

And you were the one to read everything to the letter. The term you quoted had an exception "without explicit prior written permission by the licensor". The one I quoted didn't. So even if he has the permission the term quoted by me should be followed (about name, obscuring, logo, licence). Additionally he should present this on the store page.

I'm not saying I'm entitled to say: "this guy is guilty", no, only court can say that. But other then that your logic is failing here. As the citizens we have every right to treat this guy as a potential criminal with all the facts presented here.