Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 71
  1. #21  
    When one choose the GPL, they are making a statement that their code can be used freely. The GPL is specifically written as to not restrict any reuse (for example, adding a non-military use clause would render it invalid) for wathever reason as long as you make the source code (with your modification) available.

    There is also no obligation to clearly state (like in the app catalog description) that it is based on GPL code. As long as there is a link (in the About page for example) or LICENSE file with the GPL, they fulfill their obligations.

    So arguing about the morality or not of republishing with little modification is of no use. One choose to release code under the GPL, one choose to use it to it's own good. Nothing unfair or immoral here. This is the freedom that the GPL gives.

    While I also do not like it when "developers" like that profit on other people works while giving little in return, the only meaningfull way to express my disagreement is to not buy stuff from such developers.
  2. #22  
    Another way to vote your disagreement, would be to release an exact copy of the app for free in the app catalog :-)

    (do make sure there is no trademark involved though).
  3. ggendel's Avatar
    Posts
    463 Posts
    Global Posts
    818 Global Posts
    #23  
    I'm not exactly sure which GPL license that drPodder is under. The most basic restriction is that they have to provide source code of the GPLed part with their application. The more restrictive licensing specifies that their product must be GPLed and as such they need to provide full source for the application.

    However, they seem to have misunderstood GPL for BSD licensing, where the latter can be freely used as long as they maintain the BSD copyrights, simply stating that the product uses BSD licensed code.

    GPL hasn't been thoroughly vented in the courts because it has so many gray areas. Some of it is being tested as we speak.

    However, the backlash of sentiment in an open forum such as this will hopefully bring attention to prevent further incursions of egregious violations of GPL licensing. If someone feels strongly that they have been wronged, I suggest they ask the EFF to draft a letter explaining the requirements of their product to adhere to the spirit of the GPL licensing.
  4. kalex's Avatar
    Posts
    253 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #24  
    Thats a good one. Or call it Anti LDS Media

    Stealing is bad, didn't they learn that in school? Palm should have the ability to let users block developer apps from showing up in the App store
  5. #25  
    Well, this is not the first time we will see this. Let's analyze once again.
    LGPL allows what this company has done. Period. It's legal. Period.
    Moral? well, it depends on your own feeling so I cannot discuss it here in general terms.
    Personaly it shoudn't happen, but it can be easily fixed sharing the incomes with the author of the original code.
    This let me get into the really most important point here: who's going to provide the required technical support (fixes, improvements, translation, tutorials, faq, and so on)?
    "The best resource is the source (author of )", and this company does not have the author in its lines. So sonner or later that easy money will bring into a very bad fame.

    Let's finish this discussion: it's legal, but very bad business. Maybe the worst.
    Whch could be a good business? get the author into the company and give continuity and service to the software and the users.

    Bring life to the software!

    Regards,
    Herman
  6. #26  
    Just to add something. How bad is this business? Well, try to count the number of great developers and potential great developers that now won't publish their source code.
    That's bad, very bad. Do you remember GNU/Linux?
    Regards,
    Herman.
  7. #27  
    herman, why are you sure it's legal, I believe under the lic. They must publish the code, they haven't done that!!!
  8. #28  
    drnull can look in the mirror and see an exceptional developer and a person of integrity. I'm not how to describe what this other person sees.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by abegee View Post
    herman, why are you sure it's legal, I believe under the lic. They must publish the code, they haven't done that!!!
    They must not publish the code. They must make it available. So if you ask for the code they must give it to you or give you the mean to access it. They is no obligation to publish it online though.

    It is generally expected that modified GPLed code is published online. It is probably the more ethical thing to do, but the GPL does not specify the mean one must use to make modifications available.

    If you ask for the code and they don't give it to you or give you the mean to get your hands on it, then they are in violation of the GPL.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by rwhitby View Post
    Whilst they don't mention drPodder or the GPL in their app catalog listing, they do include the text of the GPL license with their source code, and they do credit drPodder and state that their application is licensed GPL in the Credits page in the app.

    So whilst I would have expected credit for usage of the drPodder code in their app catalog listing, what they are doing is actually legal and allowed by the GPL license.

    Now, whether it is morally or ethically acceptable to do this is another question. Especially for an application related to a religious subject ...

    I purchased the app to verify whether it complies with the GPL, and I've left a suitable review in the app catalog. I'll repeat it here in case it is removed:



    What do you think?

    -- Rod
    The only thing I would change is make it a 1 star review. I thought that they added code to filter out the 0 stars as "no response". Could be incorrect in that.
    Your Pre wants Word Whirl from the App Catalog.

    It told me.
  11. drnull's Avatar
    Posts
    570 Posts
    Global Posts
    571 Global Posts
    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by swaldman View Post
    *except* that with an interpreted app anybody can view it anyway, which is presumably their defence.
    I don't understand this position (I've heard it before from others). The only people who can view their source is those who purchase their app. That is in direct contradiction to the GPL, which their app must be licensed as since they have directly used another GPL app.

    So my view? I think it's unfortunate that one of the spammiest distributors in the App Catalog is also ignorant of licenses.

    But I have no desire to get into a fuss with anybody. I'll just keep improving drPodder since I use it daily, and if others benefit or profit, so be it.

    Oh, and some day, I'll get another release out. I should put some hidden code in that randomly malfunctions if the app id contains . . . no, that would just be mean...
  12. #32  
    I also think that Palm should pull the app. If there is not a clause in the App Catalog agreement for pulling this kind of app, then they should add it.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by kalex View Post
    Stealing is bad, didn't they learn that in school? Palm should have the ability to let users block developer apps from showing up in the App store
    This isn’t stealing though. More like, “taking something that was given to them without saying thank you.” Still not very nice, but not the same as stealing.

    -Suntan
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by intellidryad View Post
    I also think that Palm should pull the app. If there is not a clause in the App Catalog agreement for pulling this kind of app, then they should add it.
    How about letting the customers of the app store decide for themselves. You know, treat them like adults and let them decide if they want to buy the app or not?

    I don’t need an official Big Brother telling me what apps are “good” and what apps are “bad.” I’ll decide that for myself.

    -Suntan
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by drnull View Post
    Oh, and some day, I'll get another release out. I should put some hidden code in that randomly malfunctions if the app id contains . . . no, that would just be mean...
    Just have it pull up P0RN sites if it has their app ID. That should make their LDS customers through a fit
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidRR View Post
    Just have it pull up P0RN sites if it has their app ID. That should make their LDS customers through a fit
    P0rn is a wonderful thing... It should never be used out of spite...

    -Suntan
  17. Sky Nazi's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    99 Global Posts
    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by drnull View Post
    I should put some hidden code in that randomly malfunctions if the app id contains . . . no, that would just be mean...
    Do it. At least you should have some secret code in there to prove ownership, if you don't already.

    If you go to the developers website, it seems they make their money from selling other people's work.
    Devices Owned:
    Handspring 600 (retired), Treo 650 x2 (retired), Centro x2 (offline usage), Palm Pre x2, HTC EVO

    Apps I can't live without on my Pre:
    Dr. Podder, Music (Remix) and JogStats
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by drnull View Post
    I don't understand this position (I've heard it before from others). The only people who can view their source is those who purchase their app. That is in direct contradiction to the GPL, which their app must be licensed as since they have directly used another GPL app.
    It isn't violating the GPL that only users who have purchased the app can have access to the source, it would be violating if those users were then not allowed to modify and/or distribute the app after purchase.

    The GPL states that if you modify and distribute a GPL'ed app that you must license it under the GPL and provide a means of getting the source, if the app is never distributed then there is no requirement to share the changes. Anyone is allowed to modify a GPLed app and use it for their own internal use but they are not allowed to relicense it under a different license.

    Of course usually the app is released free and the source provided online simply because selling a GPL'ed app and only providing the source to paying customers cannot stop a paying customer from distributing the software for free with the software (they may be required to strip trademarks though).

    Regardless of the licensing around this it is really underhanded of Appible to do this. Palm's reason for allowing Appible and Brighthouse to spam the catalogue is reasonable but in this case it really does seem to be more harmful than good.
  19. mjrei's Avatar
    Posts
    77 Posts
    Global Posts
    78 Global Posts
    #39  
    I happen to 1) be a member of what I assume is the same religion as the Applible developer(s) considering all their stuff, if not public domain, is LDS oriented, and 2) happen to have paid for the LDS Media app.

    No question, upon opening and using LDS Media app for the first time, it is undeniably the spitting image of DrPodder. That was the first thing I noticed having been an avid DrPodder user and supporter since it's launch in the early days of webOS since last year.

    Having said all this, I for one don't want the folks at Appible doing something that the LDS church would certainly frown upon. And believe me, regardless of what the numerous opinions of the LDS church may be out there, plagiarism in any form, is not something the LDS church would condone in any way. Not to mention, having one person (or a business) inadvertently indicting the LDS faith and LDS church members generally. Not good.

    I'm going to lobby Appible to do the right thing and go one step beyond a simple acknowledgment of the source code. I'd personally like to see them contact the DrPodder developer and settle between the two in a way that not only gives credit but also gives compensation to Jamie Hatfield for his work. I don't know what this may entail exactly, but for Appible to benefit in this manner is very unbecoming of anyone working under a religious banner... the LDS one especially!

    Thanks for the heads-up! I should have known without this post that this is what had ocurred. I guess it was wishful thinking on my part that something fishy wasn't going on.
  20. mjrei's Avatar
    Posts
    77 Posts
    Global Posts
    78 Global Posts
    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by mjrei View Post
    I happen to 1) be a member of what I assume is the same religion as the Applible developer(s) considering all their stuff, if not public domain, is LDS oriented, and 2) happen to have paid for the LDS Media app.

    No question, upon opening and using LDS Media app for the first time, it is undeniably the spitting image of DrPodder. That was the first thing I noticed having been an avid DrPodder user and supporter since it's launch in the early days of webOS since last year.

    Having said all this, I for one don't want the folks at Appible doing something that the LDS church would certainly frown upon. And believe me, regardless of what the numerous opinions of the LDS church may be out there, plagiarism in any form, is not something the LDS church would condone in any way. Not to mention, having one person (or a business) inadvertently indicting the LDS faith and LDS church members generally. Not good.

    I'm going to lobby Appible to do the right thing and go one step beyond a simple acknowledgment of the source code. I'd personally like to see them contact the DrPodder developer and settle between the two in a way that not only gives credit but also gives compensation to Jamie Hatfield for his work. I don't know what this may entail exactly, but for Appible to benefit in this manner is very unbecoming of anyone working under a religious banner... the LDS one especially!

    Thanks for the heads-up! I should have known without this post that this is what had ocurred. I guess it was wishful thinking on my part that something fishy wasn't going on.
    Quoting myself... Oh well! I just sent Appible an email. Hopefully they'll do the right thing and reach out to Jamie Hatfield (DrPodder developer) to do more than just give a token "thanks."

    We've all benefited from DrPodder and Jamie Hatfield's obvious good will (free forever and then just .99 cents for an amazing app) and for someone from my faith to benefit monetarily under the circumstances irks me to no end.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions