P2P vs. The Clones 289
smash writes "Rebranding software then loading it with spyware and adware (or just selling it for profit) has become a recent trend with oversea individuals trying to make a few bucks. We all remember the KaZaA Gold, don't we? Shareaza, which recently went open source under the GPL, has been subject to a similar type of theft by a company going by the name RockSoft Development. Surprisingly enough, their software labelled as 'Go Music' hasn't been pulled from C|Net's Download.com after more than a week."
Hahaha.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Restricting Free (as in speech) Software (Score:4, Insightful)
I've noticed this happening more and more as I am called upon to uninstall this kind of garbage from my friends' computers; "Uhh, this looks rather like Gnucleus; you could have just gotten that for free, without the spyware, you know...."
The idea is that adding spyware to open-source projects circumvents the "You can't take this software and sell it" restriction of the licenses because it's not being sold. It's just adding spyware to. And in some cases, the source code isn't even modified, so there is no need to redistribute the modified source code as per the license. It's just open-source software bundled with spyware in an installer.
The problem in using a license such as the GPL, and giving people essentially unlimited rights to incorporate your code into their software is that you'll end up with situations like this, and most critically, have absolutely no recourse against them so long as they are following the letter of the agreement.
(In this particular case, I don't know if they're following it or not. I don't see them providing the source code for download, so they may be in violation if they have modified it. But I may just have missed the link, and I'm not about to install their spyware fest on my box to see if it comes with source code or some such.)
The solution, unfortunately, would seem to be to add more restrictions to the licenses, similar to how the you-cannot-sell-this-software-for-more-than-the-c
Because at that point, once you can clearly show that the company pulling this crap is in violation of your license, you can start using the DMCA as your friend, and issuing takedown notices to their ISP. Do you think for a minute that C|Net would still have the files available for download if they'd been told that they are an illegal distribution of copyrighted material? Doubtful.
#1 problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn them all to hell!
This being
Download.com is pay to list now.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fake user opinions on CNET (Score:5, Insightful)
They HAVE modified it (Score:2, Insightful)
gnucleus, gtk-gnutella, etc are covered by the GPL. So modifying the program itself means they MUST release the source code at no additional charge.
They aren't actually doing anything wrong by charging a price for this software either. Technically, they could justify it for their "enhancements" to the software such as spyware and adware.
Re:Restricting Free (as in speech) Software (Score:2, Insightful)
Users are supposed to not be stupid. They should shop around, check out the market. If they do that, they will find that the software is available for free, and they don't need to pay for it, or even download a re-branded form of it. Caveat emptor!
Stupid users are always going to end up with spyware on their machine.
theft or copyright infringement. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, so When you steal something from a record label, it's copyright infringement, but when you steal GPL software, it's actually theft?
Re:Open source software on eBay (Score:3, Insightful)
Audacity is distributed under the GPL - therefore anyone can take the code and distribute the application providing they make the code accessible - and of course, the GPL allows it to be sold for a fee.
Sounds like a perfectly legal, profitable, albeit arguably immoral, business model. Guess thats a potential drawback to using the GPL.
original KaZaA had spyware, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't the original KaZaA client have it's own spyware? I don't see a reason to cry over someone robbing a company of spyware revenue in favor of their own spyware revenue. Now, if someone robs the client to remove the spyware altogether (like KaZaA Lite supposedly did), I'm all for that.
Let's Call Spyware "Fraud" and Be Done With It (Score:5, Insightful)
Before the F/OSS community gets all hot and bothered about changing licensing language (ignoring how they might enforce any language) maybe the best course is to go after spyware using the fraud laws.
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open source software on eBay (Score:3, Insightful)
Who buys software from a company with adverts so badly spelt, with english so bad as to be incomprehensible in places? Who can't type "free photo editor" into google? Are these the same people who believe they really have won the Dutch lottery?
Re:Let's Call Spyware "Fraud" and Be Done With It (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How is repacking a GPL'd program theft? (Score:1, Insightful)
What are you gonna do? (Score:3, Insightful)
We can sit here and laugh at people who downloaded this stupid, stupid program. Heck, if one of us did it I think we would all laugh and laugh.
But this sad problem is the same problem that every new computer user has. No matter if you use Windows or Linux or Mac or / all new users have a tough time learning which program they need to accomplish a specific task. Hell, I spend more time telling people what program to use, more than actually fixing something.
Do you family and friends a favor. Since we all know the OSS versions of these programs, why not just post a list of what you use in your daily life so they can just look it up? Seems the easiest way to prevent non-computer people from getting screwed is for geeks to post their program list. Now that OSS has come around, I'm sure more of us can actually do that!
Re:Open source software on eBay (Score:3, Insightful)
Irony? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ironic (Score:2, Insightful)
Flame away.
Re:Restricting Free (as in speech) Software (Score:2, Insightful)
In short, you cannot have freedom -- true freedom -- unless you allow what you see as abuse. The more and more the GNU foundation tries to restrict what people do with GPL'd license software (as they have done from moment one), the further they move away from freedom. The GNU foundation has never expressed freedom in anyway. They've always wanted to restrict and control, they just happen to do it while flashing the word "freedom".
Quite frankly, the GNU foundation has out right lied about what their license provides. Proof: "We recommend copyleft, because it protects freedom for all users [...]" Sorry, but copyleft licenses do not protect freedom, they restrict it.
The GPL license is no better than an EULA. Both take something away from whoever has the software. The GPL removes the right for closed source redistribution and choice of license if you use any GPL'd code. The EULA (and the like) removes access to the code and the ability to redistribute the program or code. You may see closed source redistribution as infringing on your rights. Closed source software sees the GPL as infringing on theirs.
The only true free-as-in-speech licenses are BSD-like licenses.
Re:original KaZaA had spyware, right? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:They HAVE modified it (Score:1, Insightful)
Even if they modified nothing.
Anyhow... by releasing it as an installer executable without an option of "not installing the spyware", they have made the Spyware an integral part of the package.
So they HAVE modified the software package by
including an Installer and Spyware in the GNU package.
The reason that it's a modification to the original work is the user can't separate it from the original work. (The installer is not merely a distribution package/archive/medium... it is an Application the user has to run to install the binary programs)
Distributors are already obliged them to make available source code for the corresponding source code for all software licensed under GPL... including any scripts, and programs necessary to control compilation and installation of the executable I.E. to build the binary software package (THE INSTALLER ITSELF) that they are distributing and its contents which they are also distributing
Re:Restricting Free (as in speech) Software (Score:3, Insightful)