UPDATE: Before reading this post be aware that I was a little wrong. LMMS have a GNU (General Public licence). http://lmms.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Licensing. As you can see from the link the GNU GPL allows commercial distribution by anyone. "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights." - excerpt from GNU GPL. Everyone can sell LMMS or modified versions of it, as long as they at the same time inform about the original licence and that the source code, original I guess, is freely available.
The reason I still believe this guy is selling LMMS illegal is because he doesn't fulfill all the criteria. He does not provide information on where to get the source code. The seller states at the bottom: "Any reproduction, duplication or resale of this item is strictly prohibited", but Wikipedia says about the licence "When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus his/her own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL". He is not allowed to change the licence. There is also many obvious proofs of him not wanting anyone to recognize the software, which aren't against any law, but is suspicious after my opinion.
ORIGINAL POST:
"Someone is selling LMMS on ebay" I read on the forums. Not another one, I thought and opened the post in a new tab. The post, written by digitalundernet, included two images of the old LMMS 0.4.10, and digitalundernet wrote:
The reason I still believe this guy is selling LMMS illegal is because he doesn't fulfill all the criteria. He does not provide information on where to get the source code. The seller states at the bottom: "Any reproduction, duplication or resale of this item is strictly prohibited", but Wikipedia says about the licence "When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus his/her own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL". He is not allowed to change the licence. There is also many obvious proofs of him not wanting anyone to recognize the software, which aren't against any law, but is suspicious after my opinion.
ORIGINAL POST:
"Someone is selling LMMS on ebay" I read on the forums. Not another one, I thought and opened the post in a new tab. The post, written by digitalundernet, included two images of the old LMMS 0.4.10, and digitalundernet wrote:
"I found this last night while looking for a digital recorder. It angers me to see people selling open source software in such a way. Look at this screenshot from the LMMS SF page and the one they use."The pictures was actual identical, except for that the last one had a watermark "SF Software Solutions" on it. It angers me that they sell LMMS too, I thought while scrolling down the post, and then found the link to the eBay site where I could buy: "PROFESSIONAL MULTIMEDIA STUDIO. MULTI CHANNEL SEQUENCER, LOOPS, EFFECTS, MIDI". Owallgreen was the only one who had made a reply at that time and he explained that it was truly awful and that the subject actually had been discussed on the forums before.
On the eBay site my frustration grew. It was kind of cheap, but 17 watchers! And 27 sold!! That bastard is going to pay for this. I looked around on the site to see if I could ban him or rate him down (I have never actually used eBay), but, like the last time I visited eBay because of someone selling LMMS, I did not find anything useful to ruin this guys reputation. No rating buttons, no comment field and no ban button. To the right I however found a text box where I could see that the seller was top-rated and 98.8% of the feedback was positive:
I also found a link to the SF Software Solutions Store. That LMMS was not the only open source project they packed up and sold, like digitalundernet also had written, got confirmed when I scrolled down and saw "3D ANIMATION & MODELING SOFTWARE CREATE MOVIES GAMES REAL-TIME SCENE RENDERING". It was Blender. On the box it actually read Blender 3D. I felt so bad. "Pro Drum Machine Beat Beats Music Generation Software. Create Awesome Drum Loops" was the disgusting name of Hydrogen."I am unhappy with my item. What should I do?
If you are unhappy at all with any of our products please avoid leaving negative feedback and ratings and instead contact us through eBay messages..."
As it turned out, two videos found themselves on the LMMS eBay page.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FaYTurte81c#at=22
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-0dNR2iXk3c#at=171
Mikobuntu is SuperLinuxAudioGuru. Should I tell him that someone uses his videos so he can ban those videos? Probably... but NO. It is up to you! You people who read my blog! Tell mikobuntu or ban the videos yourself! Justice will be made!
If there is one thing you should learn from this, it is that you should investigate the program before buying it. If you cannot find anything on the name, that should be strange in itself... Try searching for synonyms and similar software, you might find exactly what you weren't supposed to find. Also search for plugins in the software (TripleOscillator, ZynAddSubFX) and words you find in the pictures. They usually don't take the time to change the name of parts of the program, and thus pictures will show the correct names.
There is a report item function under the seller's box on the right side of the page.
ReplyDeleteHey man! Great job with this spread! Hopefully it'll end up in the right place/hands. Really great example of journalism right here, keep it up!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI acknowledge your frustration. The way the seller goes about things is a little shady. But regarding the software, I do not understand what is illegal here. I mean you go as far as to flat out say “sell illegal copies of LMMS.” Well, what is illegal about them?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that this individual is offering a legitimate Product and Service. The page states that they are offering customer support for the product. The “item” that they are providing is a physical CD-ROM packaged with the program, their own closed source autorun menu, and they also provide a manual on disc. The copyright notice at the bottom of the page states that the “item” (Disc) should not be copied or resold. The autorun program and other media is their personal intellectual property.
They also seem to recognize the GPL and in accordance with it provide a copy on the disc and upon request:
“This item is copyrighted. Any reproduction, duplication or resale of this item is strictly prohibited. The individual software installers and screenshots are released under the GNU GPL or similar. The licenses are available on the CD-ROM and by request. All other images, items, box image, autorun menus and designs are copyrighted and contain our protected IP.”
LMMS is distributed under Version 2 of the General Public License (GPL). Available here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
Section1 says that you may freely copy and distribute the program or its source code provided you distribute the license along with it. It also says “You 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.”
Section2 more or less covers the freedom to modify any portion of the works distributed under the license. And Section3 states that you may freely copy or distribute the object code or executables if you abide by Section 1 & 2, and you either provide source code with the program, or upon request.
So unless you can prove that the seller is refusing to provide or point their customers to source code, your brash claims are unfounded.
Now you seem to be assuming that 'Free' means 'Free-of-Charge'. However, it is about the Freedoms of the people, something you seem eager to deny the seller of this product.
The Preamble of the GPLv2 describes this thoroughly:
“When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.”
Not only does the GPL allow you to sell GPL licensed software, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) encourages it. And they directly say this: “Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding. Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.”
I adamantly suggest that you read every single word here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
And that you familiarize yourself with the GPL. Because as a user of GPL software, YOU have these RIGHTS too, and NO ONE should EVER ask you to give them up.
Finally, your personal brazen aspirations to make "that bastard"…"pay for this" and "ruin this guys reputation" "because of someone selling LMMS", Could be viewed as harassment or slander. Perhaps it would accomplish more (and be better journalism) to contact the seller, and confirm that the software is GPL, and that it complies with the GPL (by making the consumer aware of the license, and providing source code of the GPL software at least upon request). You could also purchase a copy and find out whats on the disc for yourself (there's always that 14day return).
Delete(With regards to the YouTube videos, the only thing I will say is that it is under the YouTube Standard License, and up to the content creator to ask YouTube to enforce it.)
I have a few questions for you:
Delete1. Why has the seller removed the name LMMS?
2. Why does the brand stand as SF Software Solutions?
3. Where do you see a link to where they provide the source code for free?
I acknowledge your frustration. The way the seller goes about things is a little shady. But regarding the software, I do not understand what is illegal here. I mean you go as far as to flat out say “sell illegal copies of LMMS.” Well, what is illegal about them?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that this individual is offering a legitimate Product and Service. The page states that they are offering customer support for the product. The “item” that they are providing is a physical CD-ROM packaged with the program, their own closed source autorun menu, and they also provide a manual on disc. The copyright notice at the bottom of the page states that the “item” (Disc) should not be copied or resold. The autorun program and other media is their personal intellectual property.
They also seem to recognize the GPL and in accordance with it provide a copy on the disc and upon request:
“This item is copyrighted. Any reproduction, duplication or resale of this item is strictly prohibited. The individual software installers and screenshots are released under the GNU GPL or similar. The licenses are available on the CD-ROM and by request. All other images, items, box image, autorun menus and designs are copyrighted and contain our protected IP.”
LMMS is distributed under Version 2 of the General Public License (GPL). Available here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
Section1 says that you may freely copy and distribute the program or its source code provided you distribute the license along with it. It also says “You 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.”
Section2 more or less covers the freedom to modify any portion of the works distributed under the license. And Section3 states that you may freely copy or distribute the object code or executables if you abide by Section 1 & 2, and you either provide source code with the program, or upon request.
So unless you can prove that the seller is refusing to provide or point their customers to source code, your brash claims are unfounded.
Now you seem to be assuming that 'Free' means 'Free-of-Charge'. However, it is about the Freedoms of the people, something you seem eager to deny the seller of this product.
The Preamble of the GPLv2 describes this thoroughly:
“When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.”
Not only does the GPL allow you to sell GPL licensed software, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) encourages it. And they directly say this: “Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding. Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.”
I adamantly suggest that you read every single word here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
And that you familiarize yourself with the GPL. Because as a user of GPL software, YOU have these RIGHTS too, and NO ONE should EVER ask you to give them up.
There is *generally* nothing illegal about the sale. Although shady and seemingly dishonest, it is perfectly legal. LMMS is licensed in a way that permits re-branding as well as selling. If this behavior were illegal, RedHat would not be able to sell Linux. Its good to spot these things as reason for caution, and the community appreciates the FYI, however there is generally no reason for alarm.
ReplyDeleteThe seller is likely responsible for a certain amount of warranty (the basic implied "this will do as advertised" when selling software) so the seller is opening the door for possible false advertising and agreeing to a contract of basic support (installation, configuration, documentation, usually fall into this when selling software -- NOTE, this company DOES offer help if you read further down in the listing).
As a general rule, the thing to watch out for is not the small guys making a few Euros from LMMS, but rather the larger companies overhauling and selling modified versions of it with big improvements. A largely funded overhaul is a MUCH bigger risk to the community (i.e. Did you know Safari was built from source code that made Konqueror? Did you know Chrome was then built from source code that Safari was obligated to make public?). This exact scenario happened years ago with Linksys Routers and after being reported to the FSF, was resolved to benefit the community.
In terms of changes you may observe, any changes are required to be re-released according to the GPL License. Since most of these sellers aren't actual developers, the changes are likely just branding and would not benefit the community.
From reading Sti-Jay's blog, the laws this seller is likely guilty of is also a common mistake by millions of eBay auctions: Using someone else's videos or artwork without permission. This is minor and difficult to prove for public videos and pictures.
The price of $7.80 isn't unreasonable for the quality of the product and the support this seller offers. So yes, it seems shady, but it's fairly common and often encouraged in open source software. -Tres
HI , I don't know why i never noticed this before. I have not taken time to thoroughly read through all the posts, but as the owner of the 2 videos that the "seller" is using to promote his "product" aka LMMS, im quite unhappy about him using them for this purpose. For 2 reasons (1) he has his brand name on my actual videos somewhat giving the impression that they are his, and (2) I believe he is misleading that a user can just have the theme like my dark one from a windows .exe file, oh actuall (3) i just believe his practice is wrong, any support that he can give, can be freely sought through places like irc #lmms, the mailing lists, the forums, facebook g+ etc ... I dont even know if it is worth reporting him as he will probably just snatch someone elses vids off youtube and do the same thing ..i will think about it a bit longer then see how i feel ..thanks Mikobuntu
ReplyDeleteI personally would call it stealing your videos, I mean, he could have just asked you. You probably would turn him down... but his effort in getting hold of a video has probably been minimalistic. And yeah, maybe he'll just take someone else's videos.
Delete