>> I'm thinking some not very nice thoughts about Luminousity right now...
Well. After this case I don't want release anything under GPL.
We need GPL3 which requires the license and copyright info to be
available prior purchase or download. Then people could search for
the original software from the original author (the one who has
the copyright because the license and copyright cannot be modified).
Also, the source code should be made available without an extra
request. Now GPL requires that either source is made available or
it can be sent upon request. The latter condition should be removed.
Also, the original name should be preserved. The names of the
borrowed or modified software should be available prior purchasing.
For example, Audacity customers should know that Audacity is using
free software such as allegro, dlcompat, expat, iAVC, id3lib, libflac,
libid3tag, libmad, libnyquist, libogg, libresample, libsamplerate,
libsndfile, libvorbis, portaudio, portmixer, soundtouch, and wave++.
The guy should list the name Audacity and the whole above list
beside his own name.
The intellectual property should be respected! Like any scientific
paper lists the references, should the free software as well have
a "references" section. It could be enough that all copyrights are
kept intact, but I would like to see a "references" listing which
lists the URLs to the original and other software as well.
Everyone of us should also start referencing where we pick up
the ideas: journal papers, magazines, webpage, other software,
told by a friend, etc. Too many times I see that features are
copied from other software, but the software is not credited.
E.g., I have invented the "b" feature in Audacity, and if somebody
copies the feature to the Sound Forge or elsewhere, I would
like to read that the feature was copied from Audacity. Patents
are good in this context but they are too expensive for me.
We should respect IP some other way, like via good manners.
BTW, the guy did not edit the source code, but changed the name in the
screenshots with the image editor. This is considered as bad
both by advertising officials and by consumer officials because
one cannot advertise another product and sell other ("Audacity").
This case shows (from the feedback) that consumers are not able to
request good products and are easily fooled. Sad. It also shows
people don't think security issues at all. Who want to buy
software, executables, from a dishonest person?
Regards,
Juhana
