Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Open-Source Projects Are Getting Ripped On Amazon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    In most case for this seller, not only is he not giving any mention of the developper or license of the software, but he is also deliberately hiding the original product's name.

    For me the "ethical" way would be at least to mention the license of the product and how much of the selling price would be given as support to the original project when paying more than the cost of the distribution itself. As an exemple, http://www.osdisc.com is dealing with selling open source software way better.

    I also feel suspiscious about the high rating of this seller as most of the comments are too short, not descriptive at all and very repetitive.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by screwgoth View Post
      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 ?
      As long as you comply with all the licences of included meterial, you are legal. The non-free parts, such as art-work that inhibit commercial redistribution, requires explicit permission from the owners.
      Generally all licences approved by the OSI are permitted for commercial redistribution.
      Your case is clearly better than that of Butterfly but some of the statements on your site are dubious:
      "We, at OpenSourceDeal.com, offer all these Linux and Open Source Distributions at the cheapest prices."
      "make OSS available at a price level at which any consumer need not think twice before "BUYING" it."
      You make it appear to an uninformed consumer as if the softwares in question were not available for free from their respective sites and mirrors.
      You don't explain what added value is there in buying from you. You don't say what are you doing with the profits ( you should since obviously you are basing it on the work of others ). What is the purpose of your site, how is it better then, say http://distrowatch.com/ which provides more information (including download links) for free?
      To be honest you should inform the customers of the nature of the softwares before they buy them and to explain why they should give the money to you.
      A good idea would be to donate part of the profits to the involved projects.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
        Your case is clearly better than that of Butterfly but some of the statements on your site are dubious:
        "We, at OpenSourceDeal.com, offer all these Linux and Open Source Distributions at the cheapest prices."
        "make OSS available at a price level at which any consumer need not think twice before "BUYING" it."
        You make it appear to an uninformed consumer as if the softwares in question were not available for free from their respective sites and mirrors.
        You don't explain what added value is there in buying from you. You don't say what are you doing with the profits ( you should since obviously you are basing it on the work of others ). What is the purpose of your site, how is it better then, say http://distrowatch.com/ which provides more information (including download links) for free?
        To be honest you should inform the customers of the nature of the softwares before they buy them and to explain why they should give the money to you.
        A good idea would be to donate part of the profits to the involved projects.
        I think you're being very unreasonable here. Why on earth would any business go out of their way to point out that something they are selling is available for free elsewhere? Why is "adding value" a necessary component of being ethical here? And most importantly, why should anyone have to justify where the profits go??? Maybe they just go in his pocket. That doesn't matter here.

        There are many issues with selling Free Software legally & ethically:

        1) In all cases, you must comply with the GPL. That means providing access to the full, corresponding source code yourself. You can't just pass along an offer for the source code from the original developer if you are selling copies.

        2) Rebranding software is perfectly acceptable, as long as you preserve all copyright notices in both the source code and interfaces as required by the GPL (and most other FOSS licenses). In many cases, you actually MUST rebrand the software to sell it legally, as the original apps name may be trademarked. In order to avoid trademark infringement, you cannot represent that you are in any way connected with the mark holder. Moreover, if you make any changes to the app, you cannot ethically distribute it under the original trademarked name, as you are representing that it is the same as the original software, which it is not. In these cases, it is good to contact the original developers for guidence.

        3) If you are NOT rebranding the software you are selling, do your best not to do anything that would increase the support load for the original developers. If you have made modifications to the software, support it yourself, or make it clear you're selling it as-is, and the original developers may not provide support.

        4) Unfortunately, GNU/Linux distros and other apps use technology that is known to be patented in the United States and other countries that recognize software patents. You should not ship these products to these countries. Barring that, you should at least place warnings on your product page so potential customers know they could need seperate patent licenses to stay legit.

        5) Make your own screenshots and logos, or ask for permission to use the official ones. Don't just take them without asking. While screenshots are likely a derrived work and covered under the GPL, it is lazy to borrow them, especially since it is so easy to make your own. As for logos -- see the issue with trademarks. Also, remember that many logos are not available under Free Software licenses, even if there is no trademark claimed.


        I'm sure there are a few other points that I've left out, but those are the big ones. Of course it is always noble to donate or otherwise contriubute to the projects that make your products possible. And if you do so, there's nothing wrong with advertising that fact so your potential customers know.

        What Butterfly Media is doing is likely a problem, because they are probably NOT offering the full source code, and in at least one case are violating a CC license. However that is not automatically an argument for demonizing anyone who takes an application like OpenOffice.org and sells it as "Amazing Office' without doing anything other than changing the name and burning a CD.

        Butterfly Media's unfortunate behavior aside, I think it is important that we encourage the (legal) distribution of Free Software, especially in commercial venues. The more businesses that can make money selling such software, the more it will be taken seriously as a viable market.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by Havner View 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.
          No that is not the case, it would be akin to seeing someone hauling a TV out of a house. You do not know that he is a burglar. They might be the moving guys for all you know. You need more information to decide if the person is a burglar. You do not have such information yet. You are right to be suspicious and that is fine. If you were to call the cops that would also be fine as you are taking a step to verify that the action is legitimate or not. The cops will take the steps as to verify if the person is a burglar or not. So far nobody has done any verification.

          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.
          Yes, that is on the distributed copy not the website.

          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.
          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.
          My logic hasn't failed at all. I just won't burn a witch without proper proof.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
            No that is not the case, it would be akin to seeing someone hauling a TV out of a house. You do not know that he is a burglar. They might be the moving guys for all you know. You need more information to decide if the person is a burglar. You do not have such information yet. You are right to be suspicious and that is fine. If you were to call the cops that would also be fine as you are taking a step to verify that the action is legitimate or not. The cops will take the steps as to verify if the person is a burglar or not. So far nobody has done any verification.
            And if you see a person hauling out a TV in the middle of the night with a flashlight? That's what I meant by burglar. Theoretically it's the same case. But this would be much more suspicious. Now compare two cases:

            1. Selling Space Shuttle Sim with faulty info about a licence
            2. Selling Orbiter with clear source given and a note that this is with a permission

            I'd compare 1 to the burglar in the middle of a night and 2 to the people moving. Both _theoretically_ unclear, but in practice they are rather self explanatory.

            Yes, that is on the distributed copy not the website.

            My logic hasn't failed at all.
            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.
            I'm not a native english person so correct me if I'm wrong, but this part doesn't seem to fall under "software and documentation" if I understand this sentence correctly. It talks in general about hiding or reassigning the name/origin.

            I just won't burn a witch without proper proof.
            I'm not burning anyone, court is for this. But all the things presented here are some sort of proofs.

            Comment


            • #46
              They are also selling Rigs of rods as Transport Simulator (Aircraft, Truck, Car, Boat)
              and what seems to be Danger from the deep as U-Boat Simulator.

              Both of these are like alpha software at best.

              Comment


              • #47
                They are also selling Rigs of rods as Transport Simulator (Aircraft, Truck, Car, Boat)
                and what seems to be Danger from the deep as U-Boat Simulator.

                Both of these are like alpha software at best. Danger from the deep also includes media which can not be sold:
                Statement about commercially sold distributions

                Although the GPL allows for commercial distribution, provided that the source code and copyright notice is retained, there are a number of contributions included with Danger from the Deep that are not licensed under the GPL.

                These include, but are not limited to; the 2D and 3D artwork, the music/soundtrack and other miscellaneous audio/video/multimedia sequences. These are licensed under the CC At-Nc-Nd 2.0/2.5 and cannot be sold without prior consent from the copyright holders"

                Comment


                • #48
                  rigs of rods

                  So, they sell our simulation as well "Rigs of Rods" http://www.rigsofrods.com / http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transport-Si.../dp/B004135660

                  and we are currently looking into what options we have to take it down.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    no statement to the press ...

                    I'm working for the german IT-press and tried to get a statement from Amazon UK. Of course I did not get one. The only thing they sent to me was how owners of intellectual property can file an official complaint. If somebody is interested in this ... here's Amazons answer:


                    Dear Juergen,

                    Greeting from Amazon.co.uk.

                    We do understand your concern regarding the item "Space Shuttle Flight Simulator".

                    Unfortunately, we are unable to provide the statement you are requesting.

                    However, if you believe that your intellectual property is being violated by an item or information on the Amazon.co.uk site, you may fill out the Notice Form (below) using the corresponding numbered paragraphs to frame your communication. This signed form can be sent by FAX or by e-mail in a PDF file:

                    FAX: +44 (0208) 636-9326

                    or

                    E-Mail PDF: [email protected]
                    Subject Line: Claim of Infringement

                    If you are sending your communication by e-mail, we will only accept a signed PDF file with the subject line "Claim of Infringement". We will also accept communication via FAX, unless by prior agreement we have agreed with you for an alternative receipt mechanism.

                    An example of a completed Notice Form can be found here:



                    Please fill out the following Notice Form using the corresponding numbered paragraphs to frame your communication:


                    Notice Form

                    Re: www.Amazon.co.uk (trading name for Amazon EU S?rL and Amazon Services Europe SARL)

                    I, [INSERT FULL NAME AND TITLE] of [COMPANY NAME, IF APPLICABLE], state as follows:

                    (1) Contact information:

                    (a) Your and/or your company's name, address, telephone number and contact email address;

                    (b) The contact email address and/or name which we will provide to Third Party Sellers (if relevant) so they may contact you to resolve any issues regarding your notification to us. If you do not provide a separate contact email, you authorize us to use the contact information you provide in (1)(a).

                    (2) Listing's ASIN (or ISBN-13 if applicable) and allegation of Infringed Right:

                    (a) The listing's ASIN/ISBN-13 number or detailed description of where the information that you claim is infringing your rights is located on the site; if regarding a Third Party Seller listing please also provide the name of used to identify the Seller on the site (look for "dispatched and sold by _____" or "by ______" in the listing).

                    (b) A description of your intellectual property right(s) that you claim has/have been infringed (e.g. copyright, trademark or patent) by the information of/for this ASIN/ISBN-13.
                    [REPEAT (2)(a-b) as necessary for multiple items, see example Notice Form here.]

                    (3) Include the following statement: "I have a good faith belief that the portion of the listing(s) described above violate(s) the intellectual property rights owned by the intellectual property owner or its agent, nor is such use otherwise permissible under law."

                    (4) Include the following statement: "I represent, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this notification is true and correct and that I am the intellectual property owner or authorised to act on behalf of the intellectual property owner for the rights described above."

                    (5) Sign the Notice Form.

                    For more information, please visit our Help pages on the following URL:




                    Thank you for contacting Amazon.co.uk.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by TwistedLincoln View Post
                      I think you're being very unreasonable here. Why on earth would any business go out of their way to point out that something they are selling is available for free elsewhere? Why is "adding value" a necessary component of being ethical here?
                      As a customer I would feel cheated if I've been told something is cheapest here when it is free somewhere else. I believe it is false advertising.
                      Even if it didn't state its cheapest, taking free stuff and selling it for money is making fools out of the customers, unless there is added value (packaging, ease, availability, support, charity you name it).
                      And most importantly, why should anyone have to justify where the profits go??? Maybe they just go in his pocket. That doesn't matter here.
                      Again, unless it is clear why you demand money for free stuff, I would like to know what you are doing with it. If its the own pocket - that's fine, but people would likely assume that by paying for free software they are somehow supporting that software financially. So it should be clarified. Everything else is trying to earn money by deliberately withholding information to mislead and take advantage of the ignorance of the customers. That's not ethical.

                      Those issues even though they appear a fair deal in an open market society (people shouldn't blame others for their own stupidity). They do abuse customer trust and are often directly misleading (which in itself is a direct violation of many consumer laws ).

                      What Butterfly Media is doing is likely a problem, because they are probably NOT offering the full source code, and in at least one case are violating a CC license. However that is not automatically an argument for demonizing anyone who takes an application like OpenOffice.org and sells it as "Amazing Office' without doing anything other than changing the name and burning a CD.
                      There is one good thing stemming from this kind of activities - the advertising and usage spread. This itself could justify putting the money to your own pocket.
                      I must admit I didn't know of many of those programs before this issue came up. Granted, its not thanks to ButterflyMedia, as they didn't actually advertise which projects are their products based on. They didn't do much advertising at all.

                      If an enterprise is serious about making money from free software projects in a long term, they would have to share their interests and support them. Otherwise a such a company would not appear seriously committed to the product they are selling. Not good for customers.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X