TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Open-Source Projects Are Getting Ripped On Amazon

65 点作者 bwag超过 14 年前

8 条评论

trotsky超过 14 年前
<i>Butterfly Media is also ripping off the popular Scribus layout/publishing program too. The company is reselling Scribus as "Desktop Publishing Studio" (link). They aren't just taking the programs and reselling it, but even their screenshots shown on the Amazon product page are ripped.</i><p>Silly phoronix.<p><i>Scribus Copyright 2001-2008 Franz Schmid and rest of the members of the Scribus Team. [...] This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.</i><p>Brush up on the GPL there lads. You're perfectly welcome to sell a copy of a GPL program as long as you otherwise comply with the license.<p>Perhaps next phoronix will break the story of Redhat charging money for the Linux kernel.
评论 #2118916 未加载
评论 #2118613 未加载
julian37超过 14 年前
And innocent phrases are getting ripped on Phoronix: such as the words "free software", which on mouse over produce a popup that asks me to "Earn Cash Completing Surveys".<p>More on topic, to the people who are saying that GPL users had it coming: offering the binaries without the source code is a violation of the license (GPLv3 section 6, GPLv2 section 3). And even if they would somehow sneakily satisfy that clause, you've got to admit that renaming the software and selling it without so much as a nod to the original developers is sleazy to say the least.
EGreg超过 14 年前
Technically, it's not illegal to sell a GPLed application. The GPL attempts to confer true freedom to whoever has the code. They may do anything with it... except one thing: they can't make it (or any derivative version of it) non GPL and take away the freedom from whoever else gets the code.<p>The question is, should people be prevented from charging money for something that is GPLed and someone else can get it for free? I guess the answer is no. After all, if these guys aren't violating the GPL, anyone can download the program and then offer it on Amazon for a dollar, undercutting them.<p>The real question is, can you make restrictive trademarks etc. around a fork of a GPLed product? I think you are legally allowed to. In this case, you can actually go after people who try to undercut you, on trademark grounds. And if that is the case, you will get a bunch of people who don't realize that there is a free version called something else. Business opportunity for unscrupulous people right there! Heh... they can claim to give "support" for their trademarked version of the program.<p>Of course, if the original software is licensed under MIT, BSD or something that doesn't enforce propagation of the license, then the person selling a fork of the program can do whatever they want. This happens all the time.
yason超过 14 年前
For GPL code, as long as they provide the modified and complete source code along with their own versions, everything should be fine.<p>Artwork and other works not govered by GPL is of course another issue, however I believe that in most cases those are often licensed similarly to GPL (GNU Free Documentation License?).<p>Of course, it might be that they didn't include the source code or forgot to attribute the original authors. At least that would constitute ripping.
mwg66超过 14 年前
Incredibly poor article from a journalistic perspective; it leaves me wondering if the author actually understands the topic for which he is commenting.<p>However, there is substance to this and almost certainly violations taking place. The community is all the better to know about.
Pinckney超过 14 年前
The remarks about commercial distribution of the Danger from the Deep CC By-Nc-Nd assets do make me wonder if the Non-Commercial clause can stand up in court.<p>Consider, by analogy, that I produce a product FOO, which I sell for $1 as a download. It includes a license prohibiting commercial distribution, but this license is not visible to the consumer before purchase and download. Supposing the purchaser simply stores the software, but does not run it nor agree to the terms of the license. They burn it to a CD, delete the original copy, and sell it for $10. They have never been exposed to the license, so Vernor v. Autodesk does not apply, and their redistribution is protected by the first sale doctrine.<p>Suppose instead that I distribute BAR freely under the same license and conditions. The reseller, having lawfully downloaded a copy of the work, burned it to CD, deleted the original work, but having never been exposed to the license, will also argue that they have a protected right to resell the work, under the first sale doctrine.<p>The question: Does the First Sale Doctrine distinguish between works that are sold, and those that are distributed freely?
评论 #2118800 未加载
RyanMcGreal超过 14 年前
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain this to you: <a href="http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/10/19/the-point" rel="nofollow">http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/10/19/the-point</a>
bugsy超过 14 年前
Ah, I keep hearing from GPL advocates that anyone is "allowed" to sell GPL software.<p>And then when someone does it, like in this article, there is a big fuss.
评论 #2119364 未加载
评论 #2119316 未加载
评论 #2119112 未加载
评论 #2119903 未加载
评论 #2118953 未加载