4 ms·

I shouldn't have to pay money to find out if my license is being violated. Honestly, I don't even care that they are selling the code, I just care that they are

I shouldn't have to pay money to find out if my license is being violated. Honestly, I don't even care that they are selling the code, I just care that they are representing my work as their own.

ZoFreX 14y ago
As p4bl0 pointed out though, if your license isn't being violated then you have no claim here, they're obeying the law and your takedowns are not valid.
- chrisballinger 14y ago
  They are relicensing my software: Regular License - $13.99 The regular license allows the use of the purchased item in a project for either personal or commercial uses, without the payment of any further fees or charges after the initial download cost. The regular license gives you the right to use the purchased items within 1 project of your own or on behalf of a client (commercial, personal, or non-profit). You or your client cannot offer the item up for resale either on its own or as part of a project. Items purchased under a regular license must not be redistributed or resold “as- is” or as part of any other collection of files. What you can do: You can integrate the component in 1 APP. You can be distribute it only as a binary only (You cannot distribute Source Code). Commercial use is allowed. You can customize the Source Code.
  - p4bl0 14y ago
    Okay so this means that the BSD license you chose actually is violated. Please keep us up-to-date about how your DMCA goes!
  - bermanoid 14y ago
    And what part of that is incompatible with a BSD license?
    - p4bl0 14y ago
      I think (and actually, I hope too) that this isn't: "You cannot distribute Source Code". The BSD license may not force you to redistribute the source code, but I don't see it allowing you to forbid such a thing. Am I wrong? EDIT: It seems I am, since if there was any changes to the product, it can be freely relicensed. The safest way to protect against this is to use a better free software license which is copyleft (for instance the GNU GPL).
      - danieldk 14y ago
        There is nothing in the BSD license that doesn't allow you to add additional restriction with respect to distribution. IANAL, but there are still two manners in which there could be a violation: - The BSD license requires one to preserve the copyright notices and the BSD license. If that person stripped these from the software, he would be in violation of the BSD license. - If the seller did not add anything that is copyrightable, I guess it's questionable if his added terms hold up. In this case it is exactly the same as the original BSD-licensed product, and covered by the BSD license. What usually happens is that some proprietary software vendor takes a chunk of BSD-licensed software (say, a TCP/IP stack) and integrates it into their proprietary software (say, a kernel). In that case, you'd theoretically be allowed to pry out the BSD-licensed parts and redistribute it. In practice, this will be impossible, since the original source files are probably changed to such an extend that it's a mixture of BSD-licensed and proprietary software. ~~~ Of course, this is all the effect of choosing a weak copyleft license. You are practically saying 'you can do whatever you want with this code, as long as you list my name and this license in the source code and/or binary versions, and don't sue my if it doesn't work correctly'. If you want stronger protection, you should use a strong copyleft or a proprietary license.
    - intui 14y ago
      The license was not reproduced. Please read the BSD license.
      - danieldk 14y ago
        Maybe you should too. The BSD license only requires reproduction of the copyright and license terms in (1) the source code; or (2) in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the a binary distribution. You don't have to state the use of (revised) BSD-licensed code outside the source or binary distribution.
  - zcvosdfdgj 14y ago
    Nothing you just posted is in violation of the license. Do I really need to give you a link to the license you're using? The BSDL only has two conditions: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
  - bugmenot 14y ago
    the whole point of the BSD (or any other permissive) license is that everyone is allowed to publish your code/binaries under a different license (including proprietary). if you want to prevent that from happening, you have to use a copyleft license (such as GPL). in this case there is nothing you can do, they are not violating the license, as long as their copy of the program still includes the original copyright notice (however, they don't have to give it to you so you can check). the best you can do right now is learn from this and use a copyleft license for future releases of your program. that way everyone who distributes the program has to stick to the license you used and you can prevent it from being distributed as closed source. here are a few copyleft licenses to consider: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.en.html
  - shared4you 14y ago
    If he has modified even a single line of your source code, he is free to re-license the entire product as a whole under his own license. As long as your name / copyright notice is preserved in the source code / binary, there is nothing illegal about this. How else do you think GPL projects incorporate BSD-code ?
    - danieldk 14y ago
      If he has modified even a single line of your source code, he is free to re-license the entire product as a whole under his own license. Actually, that's not true. In many legislations a minimum amount of originality is required copyright to apply.
Semaphor 14y ago
I never used (and never will use) iTunes, but I can't believe they don't have some type of refund system?
batgaijin 14y ago
That's what happens with BSD code man. Do you know how much BSD code is in OS X and Windows and commercial software in general? Releasing BSD code quickly turns into repackaging of the code by people who are more interested in money than coding. Next time do research on the licenses that are available before you pick one. I recommend the GPL, despite the FUD about how you can make a 'livelihood' off of it, which I somehow find easier to imagine than you being happy with this person piggybacking.

I shouldn't have to pay money to find out if my license is being violated. Honestly, I don't even care that they are selling the code, I just care that they are representing my work as their own.

ZoFreX 14y ago

As p4bl0 pointed out though, if your license isn't being violated then you have no claim here, they're obeying the law and your takedowns are not valid.

chrisballinger 14y ago
They are relicensing my software: Regular License - $13.99 The regular license allows the use of the purchased item in a project for either personal or commercial uses, without the payment of any further fees or charges after the initial download cost. The regular license gives you the right to use the purchased items within 1 project of your own or on behalf of a client (commercial, personal, or non-profit). You or your client cannot offer the item up for resale either on its own or as part of a project. Items purchased under a regular license must not be redistributed or resold “as- is” or as part of any other collection of files. What you can do: You can integrate the component in 1 APP. You can be distribute it only as a binary only (You cannot distribute Source Code). Commercial use is allowed. You can customize the Source Code.
- p4bl0 14y ago
  Okay so this means that the BSD license you chose actually is violated. Please keep us up-to-date about how your DMCA goes!
- bermanoid 14y ago
  And what part of that is incompatible with a BSD license?
  - p4bl0 14y ago
    I think (and actually, I hope too) that this isn't: "You cannot distribute Source Code". The BSD license may not force you to redistribute the source code, but I don't see it allowing you to forbid such a thing. Am I wrong? EDIT: It seems I am, since if there was any changes to the product, it can be freely relicensed. The safest way to protect against this is to use a better free software license which is copyleft (for instance the GNU GPL).
    - danieldk 14y ago
      There is nothing in the BSD license that doesn't allow you to add additional restriction with respect to distribution. IANAL, but there are still two manners in which there could be a violation: - The BSD license requires one to preserve the copyright notices and the BSD license. If that person stripped these from the software, he would be in violation of the BSD license. - If the seller did not add anything that is copyrightable, I guess it's questionable if his added terms hold up. In this case it is exactly the same as the original BSD-licensed product, and covered by the BSD license. What usually happens is that some proprietary software vendor takes a chunk of BSD-licensed software (say, a TCP/IP stack) and integrates it into their proprietary software (say, a kernel). In that case, you'd theoretically be allowed to pry out the BSD-licensed parts and redistribute it. In practice, this will be impossible, since the original source files are probably changed to such an extend that it's a mixture of BSD-licensed and proprietary software. ~~~ Of course, this is all the effect of choosing a weak copyleft license. You are practically saying 'you can do whatever you want with this code, as long as you list my name and this license in the source code and/or binary versions, and don't sue my if it doesn't work correctly'. If you want stronger protection, you should use a strong copyleft or a proprietary license.
  - intui 14y ago
    The license was not reproduced. Please read the BSD license.
    - danieldk 14y ago
      Maybe you should too. The BSD license only requires reproduction of the copyright and license terms in (1) the source code; or (2) in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the a binary distribution. You don't have to state the use of (revised) BSD-licensed code outside the source or binary distribution.
- zcvosdfdgj 14y ago
  Nothing you just posted is in violation of the license. Do I really need to give you a link to the license you're using? The BSDL only has two conditions: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
- bugmenot 14y ago
  the whole point of the BSD (or any other permissive) license is that everyone is allowed to publish your code/binaries under a different license (including proprietary). if you want to prevent that from happening, you have to use a copyleft license (such as GPL). in this case there is nothing you can do, they are not violating the license, as long as their copy of the program still includes the original copyright notice (however, they don't have to give it to you so you can check). the best you can do right now is learn from this and use a copyleft license for future releases of your program. that way everyone who distributes the program has to stick to the license you used and you can prevent it from being distributed as closed source. here are a few copyleft licenses to consider: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.en.html
- shared4you 14y ago
  If he has modified even a single line of your source code, he is free to re-license the entire product as a whole under his own license. As long as your name / copyright notice is preserved in the source code / binary, there is nothing illegal about this. How else do you think GPL projects incorporate BSD-code ?
  - danieldk 14y ago
    If he has modified even a single line of your source code, he is free to re-license the entire product as a whole under his own license. Actually, that's not true. In many legislations a minimum amount of originality is required copyright to apply.

Semaphor 14y ago

I never used (and never will use) iTunes, but I can't believe they don't have some type of refund system?

batgaijin 14y ago

That's what happens with BSD code man. Do you know how much BSD code is in OS X and Windows and commercial software in general? Releasing BSD code quickly turns into repackaging of the code by people who are more interested in money than coding. Next time do research on the licenses that are available before you pick one. I recommend the GPL, despite the FUD about how you can make a 'livelihood' off of it, which I somehow find easier to imagine than you being happy with this person piggybacking.