Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 71
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by Imperator64 View Post
    Isn't this the danger of coding for an open source OS? I'm not a developer, but I'd imagine IP crimes happen all the time if just anybody can look at your code?
    The OS isn't open source. The developer of drpodder wanted to make an OPEN source app and the developer did. It just so happens people will be selfish and greedy and take the source code (in compliance) without modifying it and add feeds they didn't create only to charge for it. That is ethically wrong.

    It is particularly wrong because Appible merely published the app. They did nothing else, except add the base feeds. They don't host the feeds and they didn't spend months on development, yet they charge $5 for the app. The same app (without the feeds you can so easily add) is $0.99 from the actual developer.
    Arthur Thornton

    Former webOS DevRel Engineer at Palm, HP, and LG
    Former webOS app developer (built Voice Memos, Sparrow, and several homebrew apps and patches)
    Former blogger for webOS Nation and webOS Roundup
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmason View Post
    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.
    They have to make the source code available to ANYBODY.

    Of course, they can CHARGE you to access the code, so long as it is less than the cost to purchase the actual application, as well as being in line with the cost of hosting the code, and you don't charge those who've purchased the app itself.
    Arthur Thornton

    Former webOS DevRel Engineer at Palm, HP, and LG
    Former webOS app developer (built Voice Memos, Sparrow, and several homebrew apps and patches)
    Former blogger for webOS Nation and webOS Roundup
  3. mjrei's Avatar
    Posts
    77 Posts
    Global Posts
    78 Global Posts
    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurthornton View Post
    The OS isn't open source. The developer of drpodder wanted to make an OPEN source app and the developer did. It just so happens people will be selfish and greedy and take the source code (in compliance) without modifying it and add feeds they didn't create only to charge for it. That is ethically wrong.

    It is particularly wrong because Appible merely published the app. They did nothing else, except add the base feeds. They don't host the feeds and they didn't spend months on development, yet they charge $5 for the app. The same app (without the feeds you can so easily add) is $0.99 from the actual developer.
    No one here is making the case for whether or not this is technically legal, or whether or not the dev of DrPodder knowingly exposed himself to this kind of plagiarism. The answer to both is, yes and yes. The question is whether or not it's moral to blatantly make money off of another persons work. Some may argue it's fine. I'm a member of the LDS faith and I don't feel it's fine. Not fine at all in fact.

    It would take so little for the folks at Appible to make this right that to not do so is just plain shortsighted. This is to say nothing for the aspersions cast on the LDS faith and LDS people for the wishful thinking of the folks at Appible. Let's get this fixed! Open source or not.
  4. #44  
    PreCentral needs to put together a developer "hall of shame"....

    Brighthouse, Appible, and several others would be my nominees.
    My device history:

    - Jim J.

    (On Sprint for many years)
  5. #45  
    Anyone who posts free content for cost needs to be made to wear the bag of shame...

    If you like my Themes, please donate! Thanks!

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com
  6. #46  
    Brighthouse "updating" every single one of their apps to put them at the top of the list for the 1/2 off sale deserves a special dishonorable mention as well.

    PS, your mascot looks too much like a canine version of the Unknown Comic.
    My device history:

    - Jim J.

    (On Sprint for many years)
  7. rlopin's Avatar
    Posts
    441 Posts
    Global Posts
    443 Global Posts
    #47  
    I emailed the author of Dr. Podder way back in April on this very topic...

    From me:
    "I just noticed an app in the App Catalog that looks identical to yours, only it has a different set of default feeds. It's called "LDS Media" by Appible LLC. Did you authorize this?"

    Here was his response:
    "I wrote something to palm about it. drPodder is open source, GPL, so
    they are allowed to do that, as long as LDS Media is *also* open
    source, GPL. I don't see a link to download their code... so.........
    Thanks "


    His response was very gracious. I would have used a lot more 'colorful' language. :-)

    This is just not right.
    .
    .
    Phones>Ericsson->iPaq->Treo700w>>PalmPre & TouchPad<<PC<-Amiga<-C64<-Vic20<-PET<Computers
  8. #48  
    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...
    Reminds me of the EULA that I once wrote as a joke that stated "And I will erase your harddrive if you agree" in the middle of about 300 lines of disclaimer.

    For some reason, a lawyer friend of mine didn't think it would hold up in court...
    Former: Visor, Prism, VisorPhone, Treo 270,Treo 650, Centro Now: Pre
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by jjeffcoat View Post
    PreCentral needs to put together a developer "hall of shame"....

    Brighthouse, Appible, and several others would be my nominees.
    You HAVE a vote. It's called 'Spending your cashe'. Support only those developers (and other sellers of goods/services) you like and do your DAMNED best to warn others (like with... gasp... a rating system) away from those you don't like.

    Sorry, getting sick of people believing that they have no ability to resist 'evil' retailers like cereal makers. Sure, those cartoon spokespeople are cute and attractive, but I've yet to see a toddler wander into the local grocery store and slap their hard-earned allowance on the counter for a box of 'Super Sweet Tooth-Rotting Yummies' on their own.

    You've got the biggest bat in the consumer marketplace - use it wisely
    Former: Visor, Prism, VisorPhone, Treo 270,Treo 650, Centro Now: Pre
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by Suntan View Post
    ...if you are going to get bent out of shape when someone else uses the benefits of open source licencing to copy your work for their own gain, then don't use open source licencing for your software in the first place.
    I can't speak for any of the folks who have posted objections, but if I understood their objections correctly, you did not. (I know, that sounds snotty, but I don't know another way to say it)

    Anyway, the objection is not to the use of GPL code to sell a product, which is a perfect example of what the open source movement needs to be successful in a capitalist world.

    The objection, is to not being completely forthright about it, and calling something your own work, when you really only made cosmetic/superficial changes.

    Personally, I agree that this was a scummy thing to do, and is a perfect example of the fact that morality != legality


    *edit - After reading the rest of the thread, I see there are plenty of people who have a problem with charging for freely available content. I don't. The GPL allows it for some very good reasons. However, it has to be done within certain constraints, and 'should' be done with respect for the people who actually did the work.
  11. #51  
    Well, I'm not a lawyer, and I only have a cursory knowledge of GPL. I am a Christian (of the evangelical, fundamentalist variety [i.e., not a Mormon]) and I really hate it when a religion gets a bad wrap because of the actions of some individuals, and this is one of those times...but I digress...

    Really, this is something that Palm can and should fix. They do not have any requirement to carry this app in the catalog any more than they have to allow apps containing explicit ****ography. If I wanted to make a legal case of it, I would certainly make Palm a party to it as they are the ditributor.

    Just my 2 cents.
  12. neve's Avatar
    Posts
    256 Posts
    Global Posts
    259 Global Posts
    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by ukabu View Post
    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).
    That's a great idea! Better yet, start up a company called appABLE LLC, and release free versions of all public domain books they sell, as well as free duplicates of ripped-off open source apps.

    I'm sure Dr. Null could advise on some key text or code to insert for amusement and edification.

    BTW, I am truly impressed with high road the good doctor is taking with all this. A better sport than I would be, by several orders of magnitude.
  13. jblebrun's Avatar
    Posts
    43 Posts
    Global Posts
    45 Global Posts
    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by neve View Post
    That's a great idea! Better yet, start up a company called appABLE LLC, and release free versions of all public domain books they sell, as well as free duplicates of ripped-off open source apps.

    This is actually a *really* good idea.
  14. philbw's Avatar
    Posts
    310 Posts
    Global Posts
    352 Global Posts
    #54  
    I think it would really make a statement if GPL based app developers simply took the rip offs of their apps and rereleased them under their own name. There are a lot of people that have never heard of DrPodder and don't know that it's been ripped off in another app. If a Mormon does a search for "LDS" they're going to find the rip and not know better. Now if a "DrPodder LDS Edition" came up as well the common user could probably just compare, figure out the other is just a copy, and pay 99Ę to the actual developer instead of someone else. It'd probably be a little extra work for devs to do this, but I think in the long term it'd discourage the copy cats.

    - Phil -
  15. #55  
    This is more greasy than the Gulf. Legal, but greasy.

    (oh yeah, I said it... )

    Poo on you appible.
  16. #56  
    this is exactly what is wrong with the android market and why the apple market gets beat up for steppin in on, I fully support Palm allowing us to block app vendors, and hope they do. It would be a perfect mix to 2 big fish.

    in the words of Mr. Garrison ''piracy is bad, mmkay'' (so is plagarism)
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by VeeDubb65 View Post
    I can't speak for any of the folks who have posted objections, but if I understood their objections correctly, you did not.
    Thanks for the learnin leason, but my comments that you quoted were really more theoretical in nature than directly applied to the creator of DrPodder. As I said before, I donít have any experience with either program, and it does seem as though drnull is already fully aware of the issue and the pragmatic aspects of using the GPL license in general.

    I said that *if* a person has an issue with someone else doing this, *then* they shouldnít use GPL licensing.

    Quote Originally Posted by VeeDubb65 View Post
    The objection, is to not being completely forthright about it, and calling something your own work, when you really only made cosmetic/superficial changes.
    Hmmm... Thatís what I said. *If* a person has an issue with someone else copying their work without giving them repeated credit and compensation, *then* donít use GPL licensing.

    Iíve seen this before, where a close little community thinks that they should be the only ones to mandate what happens throughout the world for a group of GPLed programs, but the reality is that what is specifically (legally enforceable) in the license is what matters. Not how a group of individuals wishes other people would treat the ďspirit of the license.Ē

    Anyway, as I said before, I too think it is a shady thing to do, and if I were in the market for a podcasting app for this religion, I would not do business with them. That is a completely different thing than recommending Palm should start capriciously policing apps because a group of people in an online forum community feel slighted over the lack of mad props to the actual programmer that made most of code. Which is what some people here are insisting Palm should do.

    FWIW, Iíd just throw out there that, personally, I donít see this as a reflection of the religion in question. No more so than if I were to hear that a publisher printing copies of the Bible was accused of tax evasion.

    -Suntan
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by Nachtswerg View Post
    You HAVE a vote. It's called 'Spending your cashe'. Support only those developers (and other sellers of goods/services) you like and do your DAMNED best to warn others (like with... gasp... a rating system) away from those you don't like.
    Well my original suggestion on this was intended to be more tongue-in-cheek than anything else, but in light of the above prehaps it deserves serious consideration. An official PreCentral developer "hall of shame" would go a long ways toward alerting others regarding developers which behave in a particularly unethical or despicable manner.

    That being said, I'm not about to spend money on an app just to be able to give it a 0 star review.
    My device history:

    - Jim J.

    (On Sprint for many years)
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by Suntan View Post
    Yeah it is kind of a shady move. But at the same time, if you are going to get bent out of shape when someone else uses the benefits of open source licencing to copy your work for their own gain, then don't use open source licencing for your software in the first place.

    fwiw, I don't have any experience with either program in question.

    -Suntan
    Couldn't have said it any better myself. If you don't want people using your code, don't release it with an open license like that. Jamie Hatfield, the author of drPodder, and all you of, have no right to be getting upset over this. They followed GPL terms exactly how they should, thus they have every right and moral leeway to do this.
  20. #60  
    What's allowable in the GPL is really irrelevant. Palm just has to add a clause to the app catalog submission terms that says, "we reserve the right to not distribute your app for any reason..." and they could fix this, and it would be perfectly legal for them to do so, and I feel, in this case, morally obligated to do so. Appible could still distribute it's app, just not through Palm. Whatever is in the GPL would be satisfied, Palm's actions would be legal, and justice would be served.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions