4 ms·
I don't think the answer is clear at all, this specific instance is about deception. The only thing being used is the name of the project to mislead consumers w
by qppo 6y ago
I don't think the answer is clear at all, this specific instance is about deception. The only thing being used is the name of the project to mislead consumers without being openly fraudulent, in such a way that it damages or limits the ability of the original authors to monetize their work.
The closest analogue in FOSS is the forking or reuse of projects to intentionally cannibalize the original work - which is covered by less permissive licenses like AGPL.
Whether it's music or software isn't the point, it's about the rights of the original creator to control how the work is spread and copied, which can be a bigger deal when that impacts the ability of a creator to monetize it. Music is only substantially different than software in that it isn't maintained after creation that requires continual support payments by its consumers.
If you're in a position where you can freely distribute your work to others, you're in an incredibly privileged position to begin with.
- WalterBright 6y agoProtection of a trade name is a trademark, not copyright. There is no deception in saying your band is playing a Beatles tune. > Music is only substantially different than software in that it isn't maintained after creation that requires continual support payments by its consumers. That is indeed an oddity created by copyright law. Though nothing stops people from creating new versions of music (except copyright law, of course). People are still creating new versions of Debussy tunes. I'm a little tired of hearing various versions of "Roll over Beethoven", too. > If you're in a position where you can freely distribute your work to others, you're in an incredibly privileged position to begin with. A lot of people are paid very well to work on open source software. It's analogous to a lot of people being paid very well to perform music.