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!"

Comments

Delete it & forget about it

[beef curtains]

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.

Re:Delete it & forget about it

[Anonymous Cowpat]

well let's see if they're violating the GPL by, say, not offering the source code, sue them for every penny they've ever made (I suppose that's Sun will have to do that, or any other person who has contributed to OO.o) and start handing the money back out to people who stumped up.

Re:Delete it & forget about it

[turbidostato]

"This story is really about German law allowing all sorts of scammers [...] all sorts of junk in EULAs as "binding contracts""

Well, it's usually said that devil is in the details. On one hand, to the best of my knowledge, German law is about "contracts", not "EULAs"; that makes an interesting point because a "contract" is not whatever one side of the deal says so but quite a complex thingie where both parties must be in a position of good faith information. I wouldn't say that a 6p letter page not linked from anything but the "show me all pages" index and a payment that is not explicitly stated till the good is already on posesion of the buying side has all conditions for a deal to be considered "a contract" (Legal TM).

On the other hand, "OpenOffice.org" is not a generic name last I saw but a protected trade mark. Since these kinds of scams can damage the image of the product I'd say Sun and/or the OpenOffice.org foundation can and probably should approach the scammer company privately asking it for 1000x retaliation if not cease and desist. That should do it with no need of somebody being hurt.

Re:What's the German Word for "Boned?"

[0xdeadbeef]

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.

Ya know...

[smooth wombat]

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".

Re:What if she doesn't want to break the law?

[timster]

Hey, I'm not a lawyer, especially not in Germany. The way the story is told, though, it sounds like an extremely deceptive practice.

Maybe this deceptive practice is legal in Germany. It probably isn't legal in the US. But accusing someone who's tricked by this of "piracy" when they don't pay up goes too far. It's one thing to treat dishonest people with honesty, and another to give them your money.

Re:What if she doesn't want to break the law?

[jandrese]

Then she should return it. If they don't take returns, my guess is that the company will run afoul of German consumer protection laws.

Also, despite what companies and lawyers what to make you think, EULAs (and most contracts) are not "law". You won't be brought up on criminal charges if you break it. EULAs are a civil matter, so the company would have to sue her, and if she brought her story into court there's a very good chance (no guarantees, I am not a Lawyer, etc...) that the court would rule in her favor. Note that some places have bad laws on the books that can elevate things like EULAs and corporate policy into criminal law, but that shouldn't apply here.

Re:Some companies are charging people for CD-ROMs

[Constantine XVI]

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.

It is not legal to "sell" GPL software, but ....

[mlwmohawk]

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.