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.'
Shouldn't Sun change the license of OpenOffice.org to protect their fans or are they doing this to protect someone else?
First of all, it's the general public that doesn't understand open source that need protection--highly unlikely a 'fan' would buy OpenOffice.org or even download it from a third party.
Second, your friend is boned.
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
Unless she downloaded it without being notified upfront of the cost, she ain't going to win this one. If they even host a binary distribution from their site they can claim the bandwidth you used was worth whatever you have to pay. If they aren't also offering you the source code or haven't given it to you of that distribution, you could maybe send the EFF after them and try to escape via that route ... although I've seen lawyers work their magic & you could still end up paying.
... because maybe it's an integral part of our product?
Third, they aren't going to limit or restrict selling their software because this could turn into a scary thing for companies. I write proprietary software for my job. I use code licensed as open source. I make available the source to my customer and they pay my company quite well so that we can adopt and add to that code to specifically suite their needs. It's fairly close to 'software as a service.' Now, assuming I used some library (I can't think of anything off of OO.o that I would use) but my company's law-talkin' guys would be scared as hell if it said I couldn't charge money for it
Do your friend a favor: sit down with her and talk with her. Explain to her that not every piece of software requires you pay out your ass to use it. In the United States, I would call the Better Business Bureau and let them know about this company you speak of. I don't know a lot about your rights or organizations that will help you in Germany but I wish you the best of luck.
Bottom line: For the sake of and proliferation of open source, please don't argue for a fork of the GPL or even for stipulations on charging to be worked into it.
My work here is dung.
Submitter: your friend should just stick it to the man and pirate it from Bittorrent. That'll teach those money-grubbing bastards!
Do they take flooz?
Well, if as you say it's legal in your jurisdiction, then it sounds like yes, she should pay, unless she wants to risk damage to her credit.
Maybe for this reason everybody should get into the habit of calling it OpenOffice.org. That's the name of the software. Not OpenOffice. OpenOffice.org. So where do you get it? OpenOffice.org. What's the cost? Find out at OpenOffice.org. What's the latest version? OpenOffice.org will tell you. Et cetera.
Breakfast served all day!
It was someone else; she was drunk; she clicked no and her computer malfuctioned; she can't afford it; she can simply refuse to pay and to respond to requests to pay ... I'm sure there are other things she can attempt to get out of it, or to make it not worth the companies time to try and collect the money.
thought she found the website
I think the next /. article should have a goatse link randomly thrown in there, for those not so close readers.
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
Man.. if only there was an easy way to remember what the website is to download OpenOffice.org...
Selling (L)GPLed software is authorized by the license (and even encouraged apparently). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
However in your case the price was probably not apparent at the time of sale (or else you would'nt complain now I assume), and thus the sale is illegal under European law. So don't pay.
Is it a typical EULA that was scene during the install of the product? Can't your friend state that she read the EULA, disagreed with the terms and is, in effect, returning the software (deleting it). Delete it, get a fresh copy (just in case the company in question modified some of it before passing it along), and use that instead.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Most likely there's some way to cancel the order on the basis of faulty or incompatible produce -- "Y'all's version of Open Office don't work on my computer! I want my money back!" type deal.
Look into that, remove their version of it, and get the official one or even different software.
My best guess is she went to openoffice.com, and clicked the link to download OpenOffice there.
It takes you to a website that does indeed let you download OpenOffice.org - but you have to sign up to be a member of their download service first.
So she didn't actually get charged for OOo, she got charged for the privilege of being in their SOOPER-DOWNLOADERZ club. Sleazy, but caveat emptor.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
I think there are laws in Germany (and all of the EU) that state that when you buy something over the Internet, you can return the product within a few weeks (at least 2) if you are not satisfied. Google for Widerrufrecht.
If they did not tell her of this possibility, they are hosed. Not sure what are the penalties for not telling the customers about it, but they must be pretty stiff since every time I order something (yes I live in Germany) I get lots of information about it.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
1) Go see a good lawyer.
/. already suggested that without having an address/card ID from her, they don't have any means to prove that it was actually her who downloaded and installed the copy. And without proof, they can pretty much kiss your/her ass...
:-)
2) After having consulted with the lawyer, "return" the software. Delete it or similar...
The point is that german law requires everybody who sells anything on-line to take back the merchandise on the request of the customer within 2 weeks. It's a kind of a safety net against exactly this kind of scams.
Now I don't exactly know how "returning" would translate for software, but that's exactly she needs to talk to a lawyer about, and she needs to do that *fast*, in order to be able to answer before the two-weeks-deadline passes.
However, I wouldn't respond to the e-mail of the scamers directly. Someone here on
If they try to scare her off, in Germany she even has the possibility to file a negative clearifying charge (it's called "negative Feststellungsklage", I don't know the exact english legal construct for this). The charge is aimed at clearifying in front of the law whether she is or is not guilty of whatever they will try to accuse her. The nice thing about this charge is that it's her call, not theirs. So they *need* to prove that they have a valid case, or else they loose. If they loose, they pay (up to several thounsands of euros). It's another protection gimmick of the german law system against scamers
This is a scam that you should ignore or better, contact your local "verbraucherzentrale". Here are some info http://www.verbraucherzentrale-bayern.de/UNIQ123205386511451/link462241A.html ;)
For my case I just ignored them and they gave up. If they did not, my next step would have been to send them a scary (aka lawyer talk) letter written by the verbraucherzentrale
P.S.: the consultation with the verbraucherzentrale costed me 10 euro.
Just don't pay them, don't answer the e-mails, and hopefully she didn't provide a phone number. If she did, perhaps the phone company can put a block on that number.
They'll go away. If they don't they'll have to take her to a small claims type court, and that will cost them money. She won't lose this case. She can say that she never downloaded it and it was someone else that did (I sort of doubt this company would get a subpoena for the ISP to get her IP address information..) or she could say the software was listed as free.
I doubt it would go to court.. these people are just slimeballs looking for easy dollars, not hard dollars.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
When my son got a laptop for college, he went to download OpenOffice instead of paying for Office and called me asking for a credit card to pay for it with. Reading the fine print I saw that the site was charging for the download of the software from their servers, but for any problems you were supposed to contact OpenOffice.org.
There are a number of legally gray sites doing similar things. I know of one that has a page that previously came up high in Google rankings because of adwords for you to order particular documents. The site charged you to "explain how to order" then when you went to get the documents, you were routed to a legitimate site that sold the documents and then you were charged for the docs. Many people called the legit site asking why they were being charged twice.
This is apparently legal, so long as there is a disclaimer on the page. Turns out in this case the disclaimer was very small print, but still there. The legit site started monitoring the referral header so they could let the visitor know they had not yet actually purchased anything, but it still caused calls to the legit company's help desk and complaint lines.
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
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.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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.
I read the internet for the articles.
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."
We actually are diverse in our knowledge of 'legality'. Any country, any system, we're covered. We graduated from "Law & Order" University, "CSI" College (Vegas, Miami, and New York campuses), and "NCIS" School of BS. Some of also received a medical degree from "ER" school of Medicine.
Hi,
happens quite often, but usually you can refuse payment and would win any lawsuite. I've done a lot of consulting to victims of such traps. None of them payed anything and none was ever forced to pay. There was a lot of "shock and awe" legal letters but it turned out all to be smoke&mirrors and never any court was involved. If any one wants to know what to do in such a case (in germany) or needs any letter examples to respond to invoices, contact me.
Regards, Martin
Yet another reply...
Here is a link to the first unknown site to me ("unknown" means not wikipedia and not openoffice.org) from google.de search for "openoffice." here is the search. Still having a hard time finding a scam.
This guy apparently did find one: openoffice-suite.com and also www-openoffice.com
Yeah, well tough shit.
This boxed set includes a Ubuntu CD, Quick Start Guide, and 60 days of professional support from Ubuntu.
$20 for a CD, a printed guide, a pretty box and 60 days of professional support is not so bad really.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
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.
I've heard of a company in the U.S. that is selling CD-ROMs containing OpenOffice for ~$10.
What's wrong with that? In the late '90s, I bought several Linux distributions on CD-ROM sets, since I had a slow internet connection and no CD burner. There used to be a lot of places selling CD sets for reasonable prices (a couple dollars per disc, plus shipping).
These days, almost every computer has a CD or DVD burner and broadband internet is ubiquitous, but for those who don't have those things, $10 for CDs of OpenOffice doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
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!
I'll need the EuroDotters among us to confirm if it's more common over there to ask for a full name. Most quasi-savvy Americans are used to Bogusizing such things and only registering for real if it's a kickin' program.
Like we see with the patent trolls, these kinds of operators also have access to lawyers to provide nuisance suits along the theme that they "provided additional packaging services". So if they stuck their own splash screen on it, it *is* work performed, and so makes the case too murky to simply throw out.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
You also own a copy of the software. This can be sold. The data and the rights to the data, while related are different things.
Even if it is not legal in the US, I bet someone will try it, and then it will simply cost too much to "solve" the right way.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
So what I'd do would be to call the legal service of my consumer association now
Yup. Search Google for "openoffice." The first result is for "OpenOffice 2009 Free" (a google adwords ad, of course, but many people sadly don't know the difference). The link takes you to some official-looking website, openoffice-software.com, which in turn links to some sleazy pay site.
>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.
The problem is that the 'product' purchased is 'ability to download from our site'.
Openoffice being GPL, they aren't selling the *software*, they're selling the *download*. Uninstalling the software doesn't negate the download service 'purchased'. ... in the same way that you can't return a package to the sender for a refund of the UPS fees.
Easy, send it back like this guy requested ;o)
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.
(IANAL, blah, blah...)
If you're not the copyright-holder of a piece of GPLed software, you have the right to sell copies of the software, but you do not have the right to sell the legal, controlling rights to that software.
Here's the relevant bit from the FSF's GPL Licensing FAQ:
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
It's interesting that the FSF talks about selling copies rather than just about licensing a copy. I believe their point is that in order to distribute the software (for free or for money) it's necessary for you to transmit a copy to someone else, and because the GPL puts restrictions on distribution, not use, there's no point in using the term "licensing".
coding is life
8. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the Library except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the Library is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. [emphasis added]
Selling a copy of the software—with an up-front price, like you said—would be one thing, but it appears that they are trying to impose a secondary license agreement (the EULA) on top of the LGPL that contractually binds the user to some payment after the fact. The license, and all other versions of the GPL and LGPL, forbid that outright. In fact, that company may now be forbidden from distributing OpenOffice.org to anyone at all, since they voided the entire license for themselves. (Not a lawyer.)
Or, it is worth that much but the money is going to the wrong people...
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Contrary to the belief of many on /., a lot of people simply have no clue how to use the Internet. This makes sense when you consider the level of computer understanding among the general public before the Internet. What made you think they'd understand the Internet properly?
They have, however, noticed that "(company name).com" generally works.
Do that with OpenOffice and see what happens.
A quick google search came up with several US companies that are pretty much doing the same thing, but they get your credit card or pay pal info before allowing you to download open office from them. One wants $49.95 a year!
The way the story is told I'd suggest that the practices of this company are at the very least deceptive, and there's ways to deal with this. I'd recommend waiting for legal papers (Mahnbescheid*) and then have a lawyer tell them to shove it. They won't go to court because they know that their business practices are "Sittenwidrig" (including laesio enormis - the service (that's what was sold) is in no way proportional to the costs) which essentially means that their practices are amoral/against proper business practices and thus not legal. *) A Gerichtlicher Mahnbescheid is a kind of legal paper anyone can get from a local court without any real checks by paying a few bucks to the court. This paper is then used for forclosure. However, this claim can be challenged, which would lead to a proper civil trial - if the claiming party will go that far, which in this case, they most likely won't.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?