Slashdot Mirror
P2P vs. The Clones
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."
You can never go bankrupt betting on the ignorance of average PC users.
This does, in fact, represent a flaw in current open-source licenses such as GPL, and in the free (as in speech) software movement in general.
o st-of-copying-and-the-media clause works. The difficulty comes in deciding exactly what needs to be restricted, and how to word it properly. You then combine this with a proper copyright on the code, and you have something you can enforce.
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.
Well, DUH!! you cant just give away source code and not expect this to happen. This is what you open source people get!! /begin astroturfing
Internet accelerator
Bandwidth optimizer
Password manager (Gator, the industry standard)
HotBar
and many other goodies you would have never got off some open source site.
If anything, this reminds me more of how Morpheus completely ripped off Gnucleus after Kazaa kicked them off their networks, leaving Morpheus pretty much screwed. They changed a few pictures, and originally presented none of the code to the public.
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
These programs are the #1 problem I encounter when I get the oh so common call from friends and family about how their PC just keeps popping up ads and is running really slow.
/. I am sure a great deal of you know my pain.
Damn them all to hell!
This being
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
Ever since download.com went from a free listing of free/shareware to a pay for listing service they've gotten far less scrupleless. They realy dont seem to care what they host so long as they get paid.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Those user opinions have got to be fake. " "I like it :)"
No spyware is bundled with it, and it is a fairly reliable software package. This must be the best Thing in the world. Now my life is excelent!"
""Great Program No Ads!"
Fast, easy to use, plenty to choose from My roommate and I both use this program and we think it's stupendous! This program is excellent."
Give me a break. They could have at least made it a little less obvious.
The Television Wiki
Some might call this 'astroturf', but I reckon that even blind freddy could see that this grass is brown!
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
"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."
Oh, so When you steal something from a record label, it's copyright infringement, but when you steal GPL software, it's actually theft?
I work on the Audacity sound editor, a free software project that is being re-branded and sold on eBay under names like LuxuriousitySound. Most of the sellers try to conceal the app's identity, and of course they don't mention that it's free and open-source. The same vendors are also selling rebranded versions of Open Office and GIMP. We get a lot of messages from angry users who find out that they payed $15 for software that's free for everybody.
The vendors are obeying the GPL, so they aren't guilty of copyright infringement. They're careful not to use the software's real name, so of course they aren't guilty of misusing our trademarks. They might be in violation of deceptive advertising laws, or eBay's own "Brand Name Misuse Policy," but eBay hasn't yet acted on any of the buyers' complaints.
Marketing a product that secretly does something other than what the seller acknowledges seems to me to be equivalent to fraud.
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.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
It can't have spyware; it's site says it doesn't.
"It is totally free from spyware, adware and other similar stuff."
"And the best thing about this program is that it has been thoroughly checked and built so it is free from spyware , adware , pop up ads etc."
See?!
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.
Kazaa came bundled with a client for BDE which was used to sell your spare cpu cycles to someone else. Basically like a huge distributed computing project, that the end user had absolutely no idea about.. I believe this single act kick-started the whole anti-adware/spyware movement.
I'd recommend using KazaaLite K++, which has removed all of the extra FUD. Although, good luck finding a legitimate download. 98% of the files on Kazaa are fakes, planted by the RIAA to dissuade you from downloading music. In the end, it is not going to matter what client you use, if all of the files on the network are bogus.