Beware of "Backspaceware" 257
SubLevel writes "Since conception in 2004, Paint.NET has been generously been offering the software community the taste of successful freeware, by allowing anyone to download and decipher the entire working of their extremely popular photo editing program. As posted in the Official Paint.NET blog by Rick Brewster, "Backspaceware" as he has so coined has become a tremendous issue. "Paint.NET's license is very generous, and I even release the source code. All free of charge. Unfortunately it gets taken advantage of every once in awhile by scum who are trying to profit from the work of others. I like to call this backspaceware*. They download the source code for something, load it up in to Visual Studio (or whatever), hit the backspace key over the software's name and credits, type in a new name and author, and re-release it. They send it to all the download mirror sites, and don't always do a good job covering up their tracks.""
Not all GPL violations get handled as smoothly (Score:4, Informative)
Source code defined (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not all GPL violations get handled as smoothly (Score:4, Informative)
I know the FSF provides this service. I did not know the EFF did.
One of the culprits (Score:1, Informative)
Ultra Software backspaceware [ultra-software.com]
On the products page a number of applications have been "re-branded".
I would imagine Mr. Hardy is blissfully unaware whether anyone has noticed.
Re:this happened to me (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let me introduce you (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let me introduce you (Score:2, Informative)
There is a lot of weight to the argument that a large number of settlements effectively make it "tested", but that's only really a probability, not a fact. Until such time as a decision is handed down by a court, upholding the validity of the GPL, and assigning damages to the copyright holder (either monetary or injunctive), there will still be a question.
Moral rights (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Let me introduce you (Score:3, Informative)
If somebody infringes it, the copyright holder sues the copier, and the copier's only defense is the license granted by the GPL, otherwise he has no license to copy and is in violation of copyright laws. The GPL hasn't been "tested in court" because if the case goes to court, it is in the defendant's interest to show that the GPL is valid and that he's been following it. (The only other option would be to somehow try to prove that the GPL is equivalent to putting something in the public domain, and that argument just won't fly.)
Usually it doesn't take long for the plaintiff's lawyers to point this out to the defendant's lawyers, and the defentdant's lawyers to point this out to the defendant, and for them all to quickly come to some settlement.
And actually, the GPL has been tested in court in Germany, and found to be perfectly valid.
Re:Statutory damages (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let me introduce you (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Let me introduce you (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Closing the source? (Score:1, Informative)
So I really don't think that is comparable...