Open-Source Projects Are Getting Ripped On Amazon
phoronix.com
phoronix.com
Silly phoronix.
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.
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.
Perhaps next phoronix will break the story of Redhat charging money for the Linux kernel.
Orbit's license explicitly forbids selling it and/or its parts: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/terms.php
Trademarks can be involved as well: e.g. you cannot resell Firefox and still call it Firefox.
Even the screenshot for Inkscape is a ripoff of a tutorial: http://howto.nicubunu.ro/inkscape_face_draw/ (and the license is breached because there is no attribution made).
So in case you want to sell open-source software, make sure you consult a lawyer ;)
This shouldn't be an issue here, as they've changed the names. They, e.g., sell Scribus as "Desktop Publishing Studio".
Branding an application with a different name (i.e. removing all references to the old name from the code-base) takes effort and it's not just a matter of changing the main window title. Just ask the Debian people that rebranded Firefox to IceWeasel.
Or the people who rebrand redhat as centos for that matter. I bet it takes a little more than a find-and-replace-in-project.
In case of Firefox: no, you cannot sell it without written permission while branded as "Firefox".
From http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html ...
You can't put the Mozilla Mark(s) on anything that you
produce commercially (whether or not you make a profit) --
at least not without receiving Mozilla's written permission.
distribute unchanged Mozilla product(s) (code + config) for
each platform downloaded from www.mozilla.com
or www.mozilla.org as long as you distribute them
without charge
In addition, on an all too frequent basis, we receive
reports about websites selling the Mozilla Firefox browser,
using the Mozilla Marks to promote other products and
services, or using modified versions of the Mozilla Marks.
The problem with these activities is that they may be
deceptive, harm users, cause consumer confusion, and
jeopardize the identity and meaning of the Mozilla Marks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?).
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.
However, there is substance to this and almost certainly violations taking place. The community is all the better to know about.
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.
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.
The question: Does the First Sale Doctrine distinguish between works that are sold, and those that are distributed freely?
In any case, you cannot make a copy of the product and must resell the original product which you bought, due to copyright law. Personally, I don't think copyright models reality really well, so there will be lots of these problems.
And then when someone does it, like in this article, there is a big fuss.
That said, yes, the GPL doesn't actually make it impossible to turn a profit.
MySQL AB was sold for about a billion dollars, proving you can make a whole lot of money while still writing software that can be obtained through a license that respect the rights of the users.