Damn i am starting to think more and more of Android. Jailbreak is no solution for sure.
Yes, it's tough for part time developers. I help with a couple of pure C projects, and while XCode iseems amazing, it is impenetrable to me... otherwise i would probably switch to OS X.
But Android suffers severely from compatibility issues ... so here's to a pure Linux desktop
As I understand from your further posts, you see the problem in selling something for a fee while concealing that it can also be obtained for free (as in free beer). In that case the fact that it is a "free GPLed open-source" engine seems irrelevant.
(But is it really the case that the exact same thing, user interface and all, can be had for free for these same platforms?)
JuLieN wrote:...I still think that selling a free GPLed open-source engine is highly unethical....
While it's not something I'd do, I don't think it's unethical (assuming he's not violating the GPL agreement).
The buyers are not forced to buy. They do so because they want to try out what looks like a quality product. And I'm sure they will happy with their purchase.
It's also not clear but the seller may be adding value to the product - for example by offering support or a guarantee. In this case I don't think he is but potentially you could sell a GPLed product and provide support.
Also the buyer may know about the free version yet prefer to pay a small fee for the product as they think it more likely to be supported and updated in the future (I never use free development components for this very reason).
At the very least the seller is making a quality product more widely available.
So where is the crime? Seems like everyone is happy. It's capitalism at it's best - no coercion anywhere!
Steve
This is not just naive. This borders on stupidity.
What support were you actually thinking of from a guy that did not write the program and wouldn't know where to start ? It's a rip off, plain and simple. If you can't see that then you are blind.
syzygy wrote:But is it really the case that the exact same thing, user interface and all, can be had for free for these same platforms?
Yes, this is really what happens: they download Stockfish for iOS's source code, replace Thord's name in the interface with their's (or just deactivate the "about" menu), and sell their build on the AppStore. Numerous examples with screenshots in this thread, since page 1.
syzygy wrote:But is it really the case that the exact same thing, user interface and all, can be had for free for these same platforms?
Yes, this is really what happens: they download Stockfish for iOS's source code, replace Thord's name in the interface with their's (or just deactivate the "about" menu), and sell their build on the AppStore. Numerous examples with screenshots in this thread, since page 1.
The example you give is not analogous. The rich Roman changed the property to imply the villa was something it wasn't (a property which could sustain fish). So the buyer is indeed being deceived - which is wrong.
In the case of the clone the description of what the buyers are getting is correct - there is no deceit. Where is the deceit?
If you think the deceit is "lying by omission" then this has massive consequences. You are implying that anyone who sells a product for a knowingly higher price must morally inform the buyer that they can purchase the same good at a lower price. So for you it is immoral for a corn-flake manufacturer to sell their own higher price corn flakes without telling the buyers that they also put the exact same products in a own label version they make for a supermarket. Of course this happen all the time and to outlaw it would be absurd.
You also say say that the deceit is "the abuse of the user's ignorance". So you imply that the victim is the buyer. Let me ask you this, if Tord now released a exact same version of Stockfish and charged $2 while keeping the free version available would that still be immoral on Tord's part. I'd be surprised if you thought it was. Yet from the buyer's point of view nothing has changed so they must still be the victim.
Ron Langeveld wrote:
This is not just naive. This borders on stupidity.
What support were you actually thinking of from a guy that did not write the program and wouldn't know where to start ? It's a rip off, plain and simple. If you can't see that then you are blind.
Where is the wrongdoing? There is no theft, no deceit and no coercion.
It may be a rip-off but you are not being forced to buy it. Nobody is being forced to buy anything. So don't buy it and no harm is being done.
Steve Maughan wrote:Where is the wrongdoing? There is no theft, no deceit and no coercion.
Deceit can take many forms. I'd say there is deceit here.
But more importantly, it's a slap in the face to free programmers to rebrand their project for profit.
And the repackagers generally are so clueless they can't provide any meaningful support either.
You've got to do better than just say there is deceit. Where is the deceit? He is delivering everything he is advertising.
I think your "slap in the face" comment is important. And I think it's the core of the problem. People don't like the idea that this person is profiting from Tord's work while Tord gets nothing. We somehow feel that it's theft - Tord's property rights have somehow been breached. But remember this is Tord's decision not ours. It's his property to do as he wishes. The GPL is clear. People can take his work and profit from it as long as they publish their code (I don't know if this guy has or hasn't). I'd say it is an uninteded consequence of Tord giving away his IP.
Steve Maughan wrote:You've got to do better than just say there is deceit. Where is the deceit?
Deceit by ommission is a well known phenomena.
Also , when people charge money for goods, they are expected to provide support. Implicit warranties are the norm in virtually all market places and countries. Repackagers cannot provide this.
