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.""
Shady business practices (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets take the average scenario:
- Shady person sees a piece of software and thinks they can make some money if they made their own.
- Shady person has no programming knowledge, so posts on rentacoder or similar.
- Because they have no idea of what software development entails, or in order to make money it must cost next to nothing.
- Shady freelancer or outsourcing business wins the bid.
- Shady freelancer re-brands an existing piece of software in a day and the job's complete.
Quite a few times this is down to freelancers knowing they can just re-brand an existing open-source project, or even the shady business knowing they can get it cheap if freelancers do that.
Some times they get lucky and their "product" gets more success than the original project, but it's origins are now hidden and will be forever because you can't just come clean 6-12 months down the line when it's making money.
I've long called this pump and dump software, companies or individuals trying to build up a large portfolio of software under a common brand covering the widest market possible in the remote hope that they'll profit from some.
Statutory damages (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of us who casually infringe copyright don't delete the existing copyright notices and claim the stuff to be our own. These people do, making it plagiarism, which to me is copyright infringement compounded by *fraud*. I could care less about copyright infringement myself, but woe betide anyone who takes my work and calls it theirs!
-uso.
this happened to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let me introduce you (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Closing the source? (Score:4, Interesting)
OTOH, his behavior is consistent with having first decided to close the source, and then coming up with this as an acceptable excuse to lay out before his user base.
Perhaps the people at his day job, at Microsoft, have offered to buy his copyright. There would be a need to close the source in a way that would not offend potential purchasers of any Microsoft product that would be marketed as a follow-on to the users of his original work.
Either the author of TFA is incredibly naive about the software community, or he is attempting to do something clever in the way of marketdroid spin. I doubt very much that he could have gained sufficient experience to write a major piece of software without losing his naivety along the way. OTOH, he works in an environment that values cleverness in exploiting markets and marks above honesty, ethics, or legalities.
Just saying.
Re:this happened to me (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Let me introduce you (Score:5, Interesting)
But the GPL has been "tested" in court, while Paint.NET's current license has, I assume, not been yet. Also there are organizations that will help you in court if it's a GPL violation. So in part it's a matter of practicality, not principle.
Also Paint.NET should consider exactly how they want legitimately derived works to happen. If the GPL prevents certain kinds of derived works that they might like to see others create, then it's not the right license on principle.
Hmm, currently they're using the MIT license [opensource.org], which is extremely permissive. I don't even see a prohibition against re-branding and re-crediting in the license. So it's not obvious to me that the current license is being violated. Perhaps it is and I'm just not seeing it because IANAL. Anyway, consider that the current license provides next to nothing in terms of protection, and that's what the authors chose. The GPL provides substantial protection against abuses, and if paint.net wants to whine, they should "sublicense" (which is explicitly permissible under the MIT license) first to demonstrate that they really don't want this stuff to happen. The MIT license looks to me like a big "kick me" sign.
Re:Let me introduce you (Score:3, Interesting)
Sugar Public License (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's copyright infringement (Score:1, Interesting)
Ah, yes, the need for recognition. You have finally gotten to the heart of the discussion. No one else has seem to have gotten it except perhaps the OP webmaster404, who didn't communicate it well. Everyone else is off on "it's wrong because the law says so."
In the words of Maslow [wikipedia.org]: "A musician must make music, the artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately at peace with himself. What a man can be, he must be. This need we may call self-actualisation.". This happens after the various esteem needs, love needs, safety needs, and physiological needs are met.
I have contributed a lot of code, writings, music, artwork, and even new math theorems to the public domain. I usually state explicitly (since no one seems to get it) that you can use my stuff for commercial or noncommercial purposes, with or without acknowledgment. You'll have to take that statement at face value since you don't know who I am, but my stuff is "around", from background music in people's home pages (where sometimes perhaps I'd prefer not to be recognized :) ) to discussion forums to Wikipedia (where
they acknowledge it). Why should I be
upset if you use my stuff helps you become successful? I am reasonably
successful in life otherwise, and the things that I do are done because
I want, even need, to do them, not because of what recognition I may or
may not receive.
And to quote another nameless AC [slashdot.org]: "the average reasonably-successful-slashdotter-guy gets stuck with the 'esteem needs' stage aiming for Karma. Only us self-actualized 'Anonymous Coward' guys rise above this with insightful and informative posts such as this one without whoring for karma."
Re:Shady business practices (Score:1, Interesting)
Everyone here (esp you) already knows this - so stop trolling!
Re:Closing the source? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why yes, because linux and bsd code have never been ripped off.
I didn't say that linux and bsd code had never been ripped off.
Nor does the author talk about taking the software closed source; if you read the article he talks about distributing part of the project as a binary, the bits that people can easily use to just change the copyright messages, the installer and other small bits. The removal of the current source is a stopgap until he decides which option to take.
Here I agree that you have more of a point. However, if you cripple the source code distribution so that it's no longer possible to compile the whole thing from source, to me that indicates that the software is no longer open source. Pick any high-profile OSS project such as the Gimp or gcc, and ask yourself what would happen if the leaders annouced that they were taking just a little of the code closed source. Nobody would say, "Oh, that's all right, gcc is still 90% open source." They would say, "That's ridiculous -- I'm switching to llvm," or maybe "That's ridiculous, I'm forking the fully open-source version."
Re:Closing the source? (Score:3, Interesting)