Open-Source Projects Are Getting Ripped On Amazon

[deanjo]

"You can distribute Orbiter, but you are not allowed to charge a fee for it."

How about actually quoting the actual wording,

"You are allowed to distribute Orbiter, as long as you do not charge any fee for the software or distribution without explicit permission by the licensor."

Given those terms, it is possible that they did get explicit permission. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case, but without some response from the orbiter guys one can't assume that it is a violation of terms.

[Markore]

Do it right way, unlike this.

Actually it is a great idea.
GPL and BSD licensed software can be sold. (With publicized source changes)

One can just take care about brand name rights, logos and work not covered with same license that comes along with products.
And sell will be there.

Only thing someone selling a new named product, neeeds to provide is: Support
And that is where well-established project teams that actually develop software comes first.
So it is not bad to sell free software, just do it right and legally and do contribute to developers, both financially and with code/enhancements.
That way one can be profitable and be constructive at the same time.

[Michael]

This is a comedy goldmine

About "Photo Studio"


Multi line text?!?! HOLY SHIT! And node editing? Impressive stuff!
Convert tapes...... what? I certainly didn't know Inkscape did that!

Indeed! I didn't notice the 'convert tapes' line until now for Photo Studio! Yet Amazon will kick Wikileaks but not these people? Ah well, comedy hour

[francois]

GnuCash as "Small Business & Personnel Finance Manager"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00412ZI0A?ie=UTF8&seller=A3RMSD4CK0VWOK&sn=KD%20Trade%20UK

Ardour as "Music/Audio Editing Tool-kit"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0040BF442?ie=UTF8&seller=A3RMSD4CK0VWOK&sn=KD%20Trade%20UK

PDF Creator as "Create Your Own PDF"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0040RF1PI?ie=UTF8&seller=A3RMSD4CK0VWOK&sn=KD%20Trade%20UK

DVD Flick as "DVD Studio"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0040RPEZU?ie=UTF8&seller=A3RMSD4CK0VWOK&sn=KD%20Trade%20UK

*cough* crook *cough*

[Micket]

This is a comedy goldmine

About "Photo Studio"

* Fully Licenced, 100% Legal Software - No Demo's!!
* Scalable vector graphics (SVG) drawing tools.
* Advanced text support that allows you to add text in a variey of formats including: Multi-line text (SVG 1.0/1.1 )
* Node editing: moving nodes and Bezier curve handles
* Convert tapes and records into digital recordings or CD's

Multi line text?!?! HOLY SHIT! And node editing? Impressive stuff!
Convert tapes...... what? I certainly didn't know Inkscape did that!

[madjr]

the best thing one can do is warn people on the reviews section and kick amazon in the nuts for allowing this to go on

[Havner]

But correct me if I'm wrong: doesn't the provision that you can't charge a fee for it, make Orbiter non-free software? That particular case, while illegal, is likely not something that the SFLC has any basis for pursuing.

Yes, I think you're right. I don't know the profile of SFLC but Orbiter would probably qualified by them as a non-free software. It's a freeware without an open source code with a custom licence. So it's not actually FOSS.

Here is a full list of terms:

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/terms.php

[allquixotic]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Space-Shuttl...dp/B004138ICY/

Orbiter licence: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/faq.php#A2

"You can distribute Orbiter, but you are not allowed to charge a fee for it."

It's not GPL. This is the case I'm 100% sure about. But like I wrote earlier, not all of this software looks GPL, and some of them got distributing restictions for sure.

So while the illegality of GPL software he sells is questionable (whether he follows the licence and if other licences are involved, like CC) there are programs he can't sell, so the company IS doing something illegal.

Sounds like you hit the nail on the head. Indeed, this particular case (Orbiter) seems illegally distributed. But correct me if I'm wrong: doesn't the provision that you can't charge a fee for it, make Orbiter non-free software? That particular case, while illegal, is likely not something that the SFLC has any basis for pursuing.

I am interested, though, in getting the SFLC's take on this. But to get them interested, we need to show them that free software licenses are actually being violated, not just freeware. The SFLC is not a general purpose policeman for people violating software licenses. I know that you haven't talked about the SFLC, but I have: I would very much like to get them involved, so please, if you find "smoking gun" evidence in their offerings that they're infringing a free software license, then list it here. Name of product, link to product page, and quotation of the part of the license that's violated would be more than sufficient -- exactly like what you did with Orbiter.

Specifics aside, it would seem that we are beginning to paint a picture of a company that, generally speaking, disregards the software licenses and properties of others. Although my initial thoughts on this matter were optimistic, it is my experience that a company that is so reckless with others' property is unlikely to voluntarily reform and start to become a good open source citizen. More likely, they will evade the law as long as they can, until they're reeled into court and forced to fold by the legal process. This doesn't seem to be a one-off "oops, we didn't read the fine print of the license" coupled with a "oops, we don't understand what it means to be a good open source citizen". I definitely smell the "fish" mentioned earlier -- that of a company willfully infringing on licenses, perhaps knowingly, with the naive supposition that they'd get away with it.

[DeepDayze]

From the link I provided: "The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. "

And I did not know about the artwork that isn't GPL, and in that case would in fact infringe on someone else's IP. That doesn't change the fact though that selling GPL'd software is a-ok.

This is my take on the subject: If the game's artwork is not GPL'd then it is not legal to sell without the game publisher's permission. Only if they have that express permission THEN it'll be OK. Any source code for the GPL'd components need to be either supplied on the media OR provided upon request and a copy of the GPL should be included in the documentation.

While I think it's unethical to resell a GPL'd program, it does fall within legal limits as long as the terms of the GPL are complied with. Also licenses for any non-GPL'd parts should be included.

[Havner]

But I'd be careful declaring them as illegal.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Space-Shuttle-Flight-Simulator/dp/B004138ICY/

Orbiter licence: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/faq.php#A2

"You can distribute Orbiter, but you are not allowed to charge a fee for it."

It's not GPL. This is the case I'm 100% sure about. But like I wrote earlier, not all of this software looks GPL, and some of them got distributing restictions for sure.

So while the illegality of GPL software he sells is questionable (whether he follows the licence and if other licences are involved, like CC) there are programs he can't sell, so the company IS doing something illegal.