- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Open source: Free as in speech, beer - or puppy?
|
|
|
Comments (6)
> ...repackaging without telling the users may not be illegal...
Unless they have an agreement with the authors, it almost certainly is. That's what copyright is all about, after all.
Now, getting a court to agree to such a common sense position is always uncertain, especially in the past few years where political connections seem to trump everything else.
Unless they have an agreement with the authors, it almost certainly is. That's what copyright is all about, after all.
Now, getting a court to agree to such a common sense position is always uncertain, especially in the past few years where political connections seem to trump everything else.
in the terms of use i found this:
http://slashdotmedia.com/terms-of-use/
sounds like a trap.
the irritating part is not that they are doing that, but that there appears to be no opt-out, and no indication whether a package is updated by slashdot media.
greetings, martin.
Quoting:To help ensure community access to Content, when users establish Content on our Sites but elect to instead release future Content through other external sites, Slashdot Media has the right (but not the obligation) to archive the original Content and make a new copy of the Content curated by Slashdot Media. The set of Content included in this curated copy is within the sole discretion of Slashdot Media, and may include updates and/or a subset and/or a superset of the Content posted by the user externally.
sounds like a trap.
the irritating part is not that they are doing that, but that there appears to be no opt-out, and no indication whether a package is updated by slashdot media.
greetings, martin.
The opt out is not to use them, simple really.
> sounds like a trap.
It does indeed. Now why exactly do you suppose they would have felt the need to add that to their terms of use? /sarcasm.
It's a shame, really. Sourceforge was about all that remained of the once proud Linux company VA Linux. To see them fall this low is painful to watch.
It does indeed. Now why exactly do you suppose they would have felt the need to add that to their terms of use? /sarcasm.
It's a shame, really. Sourceforge was about all that remained of the once proud Linux company VA Linux. To see them fall this low is painful to watch.
well, i meant 'opt-out' for those that did host their project on sourceforge.
greetings, eMBee.
greetings, eMBee.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
just as closed source is like rent-a-dog. if the rent-a-dog business folds, your dog will be taken away as it's owned by the creditors, and you have no hope of ever getting it back.
as for sourceforge, i don't agree that they did nothing wrong. sure, the GPL allows repackaging, but it does not allow misrepresenting the authors.
sourceforge is a site that hosts authors products. as such it claims that the packages available for download are as they were created by the authors. at least this is what sourceforge was known for for a long time. by repackaging, sourceforge is lying about that claim and breaking users expectations.
[url=http://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/Verifying downloaded files/]http://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/Verifying downl...[/url] [url=http://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/Release Files for Download/]http://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/Release Files f...[/url]
both pages suggest that files for download are as created by the original authors.
repackaging without telling the users may not be illegal (and i am not even sure about that), but it certainly is dishonest and immoral.
greetings, eMBee.