Slashdot Mirror
Tricked Into Buying OpenOffice.org?
mldkfa writes "Recently I told a friend about OpenOffice and how it was a great alternative to the big name pay office suites. She went home and searched on Google for it and thought she found the website, filled typical registration information, and downloaded OpenOffice.org 3.0. The next time she opened her e-mail she found a request for 98 [Euro] for her 1-year subscription to OpenOffice.org 3.0 from the company that she downloaded it from. Apparently the EULA stated this cost and here in Germany she is required to pay up. So I thought I would ask Slashdot, should she pay? On the OpenOffice.org German website there is a warning of these schemes being legal. Shouldn't Sun change the license of OpenOffice.org to protect their fans or are they doing this to protect someone else? It has really made me think about recommending it to any more friends." Below, read Google's translation of the warning; it wouldn't be the first time that open source software has been lightly repackaged and sold in ways that should raise eyebrows among anyone familiar with the wide, free availability of the same apps.
Google translates the warning message thus: "WARNING before downloading from any third party: The download of OpenOffice.org is free from this page possible. These are not personal data. In recent times, however, we can reach more complaints about companies that the program for a fee for downloading. Among other leading search engines to search for OpenOffice.org to pay "download subscriptions. We want to emphasize that we have these offers are not affiliated and is not responsible. Due to the open-source philosophy allowed our license, but also the sale. When you download OpenOffice.org under no circumstances disclose your personal information!"
Personally (assuming the scammers didn't have any information that could result in them pursuing payment beyond e-mails, i.e. dinging my credit rating), I would remove that particular OpenOffice.org installation from my system and delete the install files. I would then disregard that and all subsequent communication from those scammers, and would go seek out the official, free installation.
Assuming she didn't give them any bank account, credit card or PayPal info (or any other type of payment info along those lines), what could they possibly do if she didn't pay? Keep sending her e-mails? Configuring e-mail filters to send them straight to the trash would quickly take care of that problem.
The fact that they allowed her to download & install the software before attempting to collect payment sounds like one could conceivably consider it to be "trialware", which would mean that deleting it in lieu of paying would be a totally legit response to being billed.
IMO, IANAL, etc.
Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
But you are telling her to break the law. I know that the piracy atmosphere around here is pretty common and what the company she downloaded it from does might (isn't necessary if the company's version had something extra in it or something) be morally questionable BUT...
If it was legal, it was legal and she would break the law if not paying. If pirating stuff isn't common for her and something she approves of, I would rather recommend paying the fee. She downloaded something, from the wrong source, didn't read the license and if the license forces her to pay, it's her own fault.
PEOPLE: I KNOW you don't read EULAs. Practically nobody does. But as you scroll it down, at least quickly scan it for any numeric data...
Unless she downloaded it without being notified upfront of the cost, she ain't going to win this one.
Are you an expert in German law? How can you possibly make such a statement?
In the United States, she could simply refuse to pay. They'd have to sue her to get the money, which they'd never do because they're a scam.
this whole thing could have been avoided had you told her WHERE to get the software and that it was free.
I know most /.ers are tired of helping their friends/family/whatever installing software, uninstalling spyware, etc, but when you're trying to promote what you consider to be a better product, sometimes more information and bit of elbow grease is better than simply, "Go get X".
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
It's happenig with VLC, Emule, VNC, ...
The first Google promoted links are bad webs.
Sometimes the webs ask for money, but other times just offers malware.
Which is perfectly legally and morally fine. The LGPL allows you to charge money for distributing software (provided, of course, you also follow through with the rest of the license, incl. providing source), and there's nothing wrong with selling the service of downloading software and burning it to disc for you.
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
I always get modded flamebait for what I am about to say, but I'll say it again.....
You can't "sell" GPL software, because it it not yours to sell. You *can* *only* sell the service of providing it. For instance:
I own a store, in the back room, I burn copies of open office on to a disk, I print a small "quick start" doc, and put it in a CD case and sell it for what ever I choose, and I choose $99 bucks.
In the above scenario, the physical CD. CD case, and "quick start" doc are physical merchandise which would be a criminal act to steal from my store. We all agree on that.
If you "buy" my open office product:
The physical copy of the "quick start" doc belongs to you and you may do with it as you will, but the "content" printed on the paper belongs to me and may not be copied without my permission without violating my copyright.
The physical CD that contains open office belongs to you. Since I did not create open office, it does not belong to me and I am only allowed to put it on the CD because of the GPL. Also, because of the GPL you are allowed to make copies of the contents of the CD.
In that transaction, I did not actually sell you "openoffice" I charged you for the service of providing you open office. I know it is splitting hairs, but it is a very important set of distinctions.
Sorry, but why is it morally wrong to sell GPL software? I can see it being morally wrong to be sneaky, and underhanded about it, like charging someone after the fact. However, why should I not be able to sell it if I'm up front about what I'm charging?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
>This is the exact same thing as buying a copy of Red Hat linux (or any other commercial distribution). In fact, this is the entire business model of Red Hat, Inc.
100% incorrect.
Never mind the article, if you read the summary carefully, it's established that the victim is being hit with a payment demand because of the download.
Now, please back up your claim and document a single such instance where:
1) Someone downloaded something freely from redhat.com.
2) The downloader was hit with a payment DEMAND that is FOR the download itself.
Not only does Red Hat not operate "exactly" like this, but no other Linux vendor does either. You should try Linux instead of talking about it.
Stop -- what! They have your name and an email, big deal. The advice on this site is insane. Do you guys live in box. Lawyers? Law? Legal rights???? Just cancle the membership, or tell them to screw off. If they give you shit and they have your Visa, tell Visa to tell them to screw off. Whacky disputed payments off Visa don't show up on a credit report???
Of course it is legal to sell OpenOffice - why shouldn't it be? You can bundle it with Templates, you can add a better manual, you can compile an version for a new OS... But it is illegal to trick users to "buy". It's not an license issue, it's one of consumer protection or criminal prosecution.
It's legal anywhere the GPL is recognized, including the US. The GPL explicitly allows you to charge a fee for distributing copies to users:
You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
Distribution is never completely free and in some rare cases can be quite expensive, so the GPL allows you to recoup your costs without attempting to dictate a fixed price. The idea is that since anyone can be a distributor, commodity pricing will be the norm even when distribution is expensive.
The problem comes when individuals have incomplete information about the going rate for distribution, but that's a general problem of market systems. This woman could have just as easily overpaid for a car or home repairs or any number of other things.
I suspect the scammers hide this fact somewhere in the fine print and then wait two weeks to mail out the first payment request.
Even then a court will most likely render the contract void. A contract requires that both parties know what they are agreeing to. A good lawyer could successfully argue that everybody knows OpenOffice is a free download and that's what she was expecting to get. IIRC, German courts have ruled that outrageous claims hidden in the fine print of a contract are void.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
He never said they couldn't sue. Only that they wouldn't. It's too much of a waste of their resources to sue her, because they are only looking for easy money.
Or, it is worth that much but the money is going to the wrong people...
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky