What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.175 Comments
- burstlag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It's perfectly legal and not against the GPL in any way to charge for and sell GPL'd software.
I don't believe there's a stipulation in the license that he has to disclose the fact that the software is GPL to the buyer as long as the software does indeed ship with a copy of the GPL somewhere.
One thing he could definitely get in trouble for is if somebody asked him for the source code plus the source to all modifications for Photographer's Dream Pro and he refused to provide it. (Mind you, he can also charge you a "media fee" for that as well, if he is a true *****, but he's bound by the GPL to provide it.)
Looking at the website, I'd say the original poster is right. For the most part, this guy's a scammer. There's the Audacity sound recorder/editor that he's using for no less than 9 different "products." Openoffice is in a similar boat, with 12 different products, one of which is amusingly referred to as a PDF Creator and Email Attachment viewer.
I like this one label on a picture of the CD: "you're too smart to waste money!" - danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8
Seamas: "I think you guys are very confused. Since when is it not against the GPL to sell
software without providing the source code with it?"
Time to read the GPL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
" 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code."
It seems clear that you can sell a copy of the working program, as long as you include the source (that's what a, b, and c above are talking about). - danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4so in all that I mean to say I agree with Seamas - GPL requires the source remain open and available. Luxuriousity renames the apps with no credit to the OSS developers and no links to the GPL or the source that I can find.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"He forked the programs, that's all."
Then the source code (including source for the modifications he made in his fork) should be provided with that download, eh? - bonked, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's perfectly legal and not against the GPL in any way to charge for and sell GPL'd software.rnrnI don't believe there's a stipulation in the license that he has to disclose the fact that the software is GPL to the buyer as long as the software does indeed ship with a copy of the GPL somewhere.rnrnWrong Burstlag...rnDirect from the GPL itself - rn"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.rnrnYou may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."rnrnAnd...rnrn"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:rnrn a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, rnrn b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, rnrn c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) "rnrnI've seen people selling "Photographer's Dream" versions of GIMP for a while, and as far as I have seen the ones I have seen do not meet the requirements of Section 1 or 3. Further, the fact that he is renaming and claiming the ownership of the program gets into a hairy "is he claiming copyright" arguement.rnrnIt's not good either way you look at it, and even if it meets the letter of the law, it doesn't meet the intent of the law, and then you get into an ethical question - either way, he's being a dick and trying to turn a quick buck for other's work.
- fulldecent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Buy using Visa and chargeback using "product not as described", as per my previous comment.
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I alone have the right to say who can use it and for what purpose. "
I think you need to read the license again. - fulldecent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You'll notice in the screen shots for "Photo Professional" that the software is 100% the original version. You will see "The Gimp" in the title bar.
What is happening is redistribution under a new name, while not changing the logo and product name in the program.
This aspect is in violation of the GPL v2. - Nachoes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://gpl-violations.org/
- danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2no he didn't. download one.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think you guys are very confused. Since when is it not against the GPL to sell software without providing the source code with it?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The point is that this is exploiting the work of a lot of people and taking advantage of others who are not inclined to know much about the whole "OSS" thing. People who may think AOL is the internet and FTP is an oil thing you put in your car.
This is wrong in much the same way that whole Priceritephoto thing was wrong and then some. - diggstown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Have none of you ever bought a bottle of water?
How about some perspective here? If people are buying it, he's obviously filling a void out there. He's picked best in (free) breed software and offered it to the public for a small fee. He's basically a consultant in that regard.
No ethical or legal dillemas here, if there's a problem it's that we didn't think of it first! - riflemann, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2madskillz: You havent read the gpl have you? Yes, you can only charge a nominal cost for the source code, but you ARE allowed to charge whatever you like for the binaries.rnrnIf this guy includes the GPL and complies with the source code requirement, what he's doing is perfectly legal. It might seem slimy to some, but in fact he wouldnt be doing anything wrong.rnrnLooks like a lot of people here are of the "OMG ITS GPL SO YOU CANT SELL IT" clueless type. I can grab a copy of gimp, change all branding, and stick it in a box with a $1000 price tag, and havent breached the GPL as long as i comply with the requirement to include or supply the source code on request.rnrnThat's what the GPL is. If you dont like it, dont licence your software under it.rn
- urbn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's amazing how many die hard GPL people there are out there that don't know anything about how the GPL works.
No you do not need to say its GPLed software.
Yes you have to include a copy somewhere available with the binary.
No you do not need to include the source code.
Yes apon request you are expected to in a a timely manner make available the source code to a person. But if the people don't know its GPLed in the first place why would the every thing of wanting the source code.
Is what this person doing wrong? I'm guessing legally no. I'm sure with all the flak the person knew he would get or is getting would have him following all these rules to a T. Morally I think its fine. hes getting people to use the software that everyone says is better. Yeah hes charging for it, but big deal. maybe hes offering support, or sending a CD.
Hell he even says (for those who did not read anything on the website)
"Developed by Sun Microsystems"
Good for him, for 29.95 you get a CD shipped to you. - Adoozie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Exactly, donwilson. I sure wish dumbasses like open-source application developers would just stop, that way we could all go back to paying for overpriced and underfeatured closed apps.
Oh wait. No I don't. What are you smoking? - danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2urbn: "Good for him, for 29.95 you get a CD shipped to you."
Actually, that $29.95 is for a "instant download". http://www.luxuriousity.com/officedownload.htm
The CD from him version is cheaper, ironically. He is using Paypal and charges more to include the "Draw" and "Math modules", etc. - danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2harisund: "if people are dumb enough to pay for such software, they definitely do deserve losing their money .."
aussiehuw: "Legal or not, this guy is a scumbag con artist. That said, anyone who buys "his" software deserves it - do you not have any common sense!?"
well, I for one don't like con artists... if more people understood OSS these shady guys would not have a market. but since people are used to paying so much to M$ and Adobe, they fall for this... - danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2UNREAL - this guy is selling on eBay with the following user IDs: loveourcds, cd-specials, luxuriositydealer, inexpensiveCDs ...maybe more. All have 2000 - 3000 feedback (mostly positive, some people figured out the scam)...
judging from the feedback on all these eBay accounts he's got, he's making hundreds of sales per month! Not everyone leaves feedback, but note that few people recognize the ripoff....
http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback&userid=inexpensivecds - LeroyBrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@peerk
More like: 800 diggers are illegally downloading copyrighted software whilst complaining about someone legally distributing open source software for a fee.
I don't see anything wrong with it, but if I were the guy, I would be making healthy donations back to the respective developers. If anything, he's making open source available to people who have no clue that it exists, and that's a very good thing!
His only fault, that I can see, is not properly attributing to the original developers -- he attributes to sun/star office, but does not mention open office? - ownedbytheman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@akinder
"http://www.luxuriousity.com/sql.htm
Is he repackaging Postgres or MySql there? Can't really tell"
It's MySQL. The writeup on the page you quote is from the MySQL site but he has just search/replaced his product name for MySQL in the doc. - TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1""""
Except that the site is deceptive, renaming and charging for downloads that are free from another URL... with no value added that I can see. So yes, there is something wrong."""""
Which is legal under the GPL. If the original authors didn't want that to happen, they would have used a license other than the GPL.
Eric Wilson - t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://digg.com/security/Kicking_A_Spammer_In_The_Nuts_Daily_Turns_Out_To_Be_Effective
You know what to do. - urmothersmother, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@danboarder: The only thing this idiot is doing wrong is if he is not giving a copy of the source code and a copy of the GPL. He can call it what ever he wants. He can also sell his distribution. And if you think I'm wrong go read the GPL http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html.
- danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A search on Google for "luxuriousity" brings up a history of discussion (and confusion) about this guy's activity. It looks like he removed Blender (notice the blank cells on the right of his table of products - Blender used to be there), so people have been upset before. Here is the Google cache of the old Luxuriousity "3D studio" page that has been removed: http://tinyurl.com/dhr7b (Google cache).
As I understand it, the GPL requires each copy to include the GPL and the Source (or a place to find the source). Has anyone been taken by this guy that can confirm if he changes the branding when the app is finally installed? Or is it all the same as if it were downloaded from SourceForge, etc? Since thousands have bought into this on eBay over the past few years, I am wondering if anyone here on Digg is among them. - rincebrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think my favorite part is how the support pages link directly to the official gimp site, among others.
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1""""
You are in fact in violation of the GPL in the fact that you do not disclose the origins of your renamed software"""""
If after you buy the software everything is credited, source files included or linked to, and they didn't change the software in any way while leaving the name of the product in tact, they are doing everything legally. You guys are acting like you don't have as many rights as you do using the GPL. Maybe you should look for different software licenses and stop complaining how much freedom GPL offers
Eric Wilson - burnt1ce85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He's gonna get DDOS by a whole bunch of people. i just know it. i hope so at least.
- cdmarcus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1VLC is Luxuriousity Media Player, too.
- cdmarcus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Looks like Yahoo are involved in the scam too - contact address for support with the CD is "Luxuriousity@yahoo.com"."
Um, anyone can get a Yahoo email address. - thad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not saying opensoucre things are bad, but this is one of the draw backs to it. I would have no problem with people using things I create just so long as they give me credit.
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nothing wrong with this. Otherwise it would not be GPL.
Eric Wilson - zemote, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Basically this is RedHat's Business Model and every other Commercial Linux out there. Perfectly legal as long has he provides a way to get the source, ie "internet", and distributes the GPL license with the software.
Come on guys, Nothing to see here, move a long!!! - howie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@madskillz:
The GPL does not say that you can't sell software. In fact, the FSF ENCOURAGES people to sell FOSS software and make money! - wmpp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you really want to take a bite out of this guy's business, put up a simple static web page with the text "Free Luxuriosity Downloads" and link to the original programs based on his modified program names. Get a bunch a diggers to link to it from their homepage and drive up its rankings in Google.
- bonked, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Anybody up for creating a policing foundation like the ACLU for policing GPL abuses? :) We could be the enforcer of open source. Just need a model to support it." - XENODATA
We have one... it's been around for years and is called the FSF, perhaps you'd like to donate, perhaps all of us would: https://www.fsf.org/donate - dkarlson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't really see how this is any different from the thousands of sites that sell ridiculously underpriced copies of commercial software. Not saying that this practice isn't wrong -- but I don't understand the outrage. This person violated the GPL just like other folks violate the EULA. Same difference, I think.
- Unr3a1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, he wondn't dare sell a luxuriousity OS... Would He?
- helfire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm perty sure he cant distribute(sell) mysql...
from mysql.com
"MySQL Products are available under the "dual licensing" model. Under this model, users may choose to use MySQL products under the free software/open source GNU General Public License (commonly known as the "GPL") or under a commercial license. ISVs and Resellers, who are embedding and reselling MySQL as part of their own commercial solutions, can purchase a MySQL commercial license. " - drag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What this guy is doing is perfectly legal. rnrnIf he is distributing GPL software then all he has to do is include a copy of the GPL license in a use full area and I think some information on were to obtain the source code.rnrnThen if a customer requests a copy of the source code then he can email a ftp link or even charge the customer the cost of the cdrom and postage to mail them the source code (in a non-profit manner).rnrnAfter 3 years then he is no longer required to supply you the source code in any manner.rnrnSo if you want to bust this guy for violating the GPL then you have to:rn1. Buy the software from him.rn2. Request the source code from him after receiving the softwarernthen if he refuses:rn3. Contact the copyright holder of the GPL'd software he is selling and inform them that he is violating their copyright. (since by refusing to follow the terms of the GPL license he looses his rights to distribute software under the GPL and needs to get a different license from the copyright holders)rnrnThat's about it.rnrnHe is under no obligation to provide free binary downloads or even provide source code to anybody but his customers. He could charge 2000 dollars for OpenOffice... GPL doesn't care about money except that he can't charge you for the source code except maybe a small fee to cover the expenses of distributing the code.
- macaddict0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know whether to be angry or jealous.
Ahh who am I kidding, I'd never be able to do something like that without hating myself for it. - peerk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So how does everyone know that he is not including the source? Or at least some HTML file with a link to download the source?
800 digg users are jealous that they did not think of this first. - urmothersmother, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1um, people, I'm not trying to stick up for the guy but these came from his website.
1.Luxuriousitiy is one of the world's leading distributors of inexpensive business software.
2.SOFTWARE WAS CREATED BY OVER 10,000 PEOPLE!
SOFTWARE CONTAINS OVER 7 MILLIONS LINES OF CODE!
DEVELOPED BY SUN MICROSYSTEMS AS A TRULY MICROSOFT COMPATIBLE OFFICE SUITE!
PERFECT FOR OFFICE, HOME, BUSINESS, OR ACADEMIC USES!
Also I thought this was supposed to be a news site? Where's the story?
Oh and this what is under his photo software.
A couple of students at Berkeley, Spencer Kimball and Peter Mattis took on the
challange of writing a program with the power of Photoshop to manipulate images.
Fed up with the lock on the image manipulation market held by Adobe, these
enterprising young students worked tirelessly night and day. Spencer and Peter
called their program "General Image Manipulation Program". - edis0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There's nothing wrong at all with what this guy is doing. Why are 90% of the cornmments here negative of his endeavor? What he does is basically re-brand the GrnPLed products (perfectly legal) and ship them, possibly with some kind of supporrnt plan. Good for us, gets the products spread around to new types of users. Asrn long as it is stated somewhere in the docs or on a CD that you can get the sourrnce code (+ diffs that he made from the public dists), WTF is wrong with this?
- scutter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I believe this is known as the "Sveasoft business model".
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, I wouldn't do it, but I don't think it is wrong or else the authors should have included it in the GPL. If the authors of the software has no problem with it why should we?
Eric Wilson - SnowballDotBe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder what Windows 2004 is... :p
Maybe he has his own version of that too? ;-)
---------------------------------
http://www.snowball.be - axessterminated, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Slimy, yet satisfying..."
What he's doing is great. He's getting people away from the monopoly and making them aware of other products. How he's doing is a different story. Someone here with a bit of extra cash should purchase this and let us know if source and GPL are included. Don't forget, neither the source, nor the GPL have to be available to the user until they actually get the software. And in order to get the software from this guy, you have to pay him. - masterdebater, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What this guy does may not be ethical, but then again, he isn't the first to try:
http://cgi.ebay.ca/The-Gimp-for-Windows-XP-Mac-OS-X-w-o-Fireworks-MX-Tiger_W0QQitemZ7212376829QQcategoryZ86734QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.ca/OPEN-OFFICE-Compatible-w-MS-Word-Excel-Powerpoint_W0QQitemZ5854031932QQcategoryZ51337QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.ca/Red-Hat-Linux-9_W0QQitemZ8750646459QQcategoryZ80321QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
EBay is rife with similar auctions for GPL'd packages and distributions - unless the licence is changed to prevent this type of activity, get used to it - theres always someone gots got a burner and printer looking to make a few extra dollars. - crispytown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This has happened to me in many open source projects that i have work on. When this happens we contact GPL and never hear anything back from them. Sooner before later and months down the road after someone decided to sell my free script then they shut down the site. I don't think it was GPL but it was the dude that stole the script. Most likely they found out they where losing money on hosting for their crap that they decided to close. GPL needs work and major work. Not on the GPL doc. But as a company. How can we work when the group that is supposed to protect us can't and most likely wont help us in return. That is one reason we dropped GPL and moved to something different.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 175 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is