Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Butterfly-Amazon Open-Source Saga Continues

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

  • The Butterfly-Amazon Open-Source Saga Continues

    Phoronix: The Butterfly-Amazon Open-Source Saga Continues

    Since a few hours ago when talking about how a company is ripping off open-source projects on Amazon, more information has come in. Sure, what the company is doing might be technically legal under the GPL (though in at least the case of Dangers of the Deep, not complying with the artwork's license too), but arguably unethical with the company in question. Butterfly Media is even taking screenshots from the free software projects' pages and then voiding them of their titles, but on at least one account is distributing a non-free software program in likely violation of its license...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTAyOA

  • #2
    Michael, I love having a centralized place to get interesting Linux/FOSS news, but could you please spend a little more time proofreading? Letting things like "being capable of being able to" get into the final draft is just plain sloppy, and it tarnishes the Phoronix name. The free software community often struggles to establish credibility, and having a high-profile news site that make such mistakes (this isn't the first one) does not help.

    I'm willing to pay an extra few dollars per month if that's what it takes.

    No, I am not an English major.

    Comment


    • #3
      W00t!! its legal!! I want in on this money making scheme.

      Comment


      • #4
        Call Harald Welte and hel'll stomp them into the ground.
        Stop TCPA, stupid software patents and corrupt politicians!

        Comment


        • #5
          Even if it is technically legal, they should still be convicted of mass douchebaggery...

          Comment


          • #6
            Not legal.

            They are violating the licence for the artwork (which allows only non-commercial re-use).
            So technically they are simply violating and according to the US law, liable to additional profits of the infringer or to statutory damages of up to 150000$ per infringement (i.e. per piece of artwork in each sale).

            Comment


            • #7
              You're going to have a tough sale with that one. I saw no copyright notices on any of those websites. No copyright = no infringement. I know there's the "if it exists, it's copyrighted" law but that law is a catch-22. Only registered copyright owners have the right to sue for copyright infringement. So, it's copyrighted but there's nothing you can do about it. Besides, I don't even think Butterfly Media is based in the US. As for other licenses, everything is released under the GPL which basically states that you can use it for whatever purposes you want. You can rebrand and sell it.

              That's the legal side. Now, stepping back from legalities: it's just plain wrong!!

              I've been using open source software for years, even before I started using Linux. Inkscape is my favorite vector graphics drawing suite. Flight Gear is just plain awesome. Rebranding and selling these titles (and Scribus, even though I don't use it) without even the courtesy of admitting that it's rebranded open source software is just as wrong as you can get. I'm sure a company as slippery as this one has it mentioned somewhere, probably in small print in accompanying literature but nobody looking at this on Amazon is going to know the difference unless they read the user reviews. Shame on this company for taking great open source products and making a profit off of them.

              Comment


              • #8
                What? They still haven't begun selling Ubuntu as "Mac OS Y: Black Leopard"?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by SciFiDude79 View Post
                  You're going to have a tough sale with that one. I saw no copyright notices on any of those websites. No copyright = no infringement. I know there's the "if it exists, it's copyrighted" law but that law is a catch-22. Only registered copyright owners have the right to sue for copyright infringement. So, it's copyrighted but there's nothing you can do about it.
                  Not true. You can sue, but to encourage registration statutory damages are restricted for registered copyright owners. You can still sue for lost profits, the profits made by the infringer and get the court to cease the activities of the infringer.
                  http://www.articlesfactory.com/artic...e-registr.html

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
                    Not true. You can sue, but to encourage registration statutory damages are restricted for registered copyright owners. You can still sue for lost profits, the profits made by the infringer and get the court to cease the activities of the infringer.
                    http://www.articlesfactory.com/artic...e-registr.html
                    I stand corrected, then (really, I'm sitting but that's beside the point.) The last time I read up on copyright law was over a year ago, I probably messed up some of my facts.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X