Amazon reaches a new low

[Hawkmoon]

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LZN0QCB/ref=pe_2569780_254011020_em_1p_0_ti

They are selling, for $12.95, a free, open source program, Apache Open Office. http://www.openoffice.org/

I reviewed the Apache License and it doesn't prohibit charging for distributing copies of the program, but it certainly isn't the intent of the open source movement, nor is it the intent behind both Apache Open Office and Libre Office. I have to hand it to the people who are doing this (Artemis Home Brands). It's a scam that's apparently completely legal -- take something that's being given away for free, copy it onto a DVD, and sell it.

Scurrilous.

[Andiron]

Misnomer.

Amazon proper isn't doing that at all,  one of their vendors is.  Amazon probably isn't even aware.

[Hawkmoon]

Misnomer.

Amazon proper isn't doing that at all,  one of their vendors is.  Amazon probably isn't even aware.

Sold by Artemis Home Brands and Fulfilled by Amazon. Gift-wrap available.

I know Amazon isn't "doing" it ... but Amazon is doing it.

[Andiron]

Amazon is just the platform.

If people are dumb enough to pay for something that's free,  more power to those who make money off them.

[Ben]

This really isn't a big thing. Lots and lots of sellers put PD software on disk and sell it. You'd be surpised at the number of people who won't download and install something like Open Office because it's too complicated for them or they simply don't know where to safely get the software. Having someone else put it on a disk with an auto installer prg is probably worth it to them. If someone were selling the download of it, that would be a different story. However that is available for free on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_fb_1_17?url=search-alias%3Dsoftware&field-keywords=open+office+download&sprefix=open+office+downl%2Cundefined%2C257&crid=7TXDMFOHDP3C&rh=n%3A229534%2Ck%3Aopen+office+download

[Hawkmoon]

Amazon is just the platform.

If people are dumb enough to pay for something that's free,  more power to those who make money off them.

Yeah, I know.

P. T. Barnum would be proud ...

[mtnbkr]

Not everyone has high bandwidth sufficient to download application suites, OS ISOs, etc.  There are folks on metered connections and even dial-up. 

But, fake outrage is fun, amirite?

Chris

[Hawkmoon]

Not everyone has high bandwidth sufficient to download application suites, OS ISOs, etc.  There are folks on metered connections and even dial-up. 

But, fake outrage is fun, amirite?

Chris

Fake? My dislike of Amazon is hardly "fake."

[zxcvbob]

Would you have a problem with it if it was $5?  How about $3?

[Ben]

Would you have a problem with it if it was $5?  How about $3?

Actually, if you go to many of the open software developer sites, they have the free download button and the "order a DVD for X dollars" button (as well, of course as a "donate" button). Developers of "free" prgs can't afford to give out physical media for free. :)

[Mannlicher]

hard to fault Amazon or the seller for making a buck.   That folks are not up on open source does not make selling open source materials unethical.

[lee n. field]

My recollection is the GPL says it's OK to charge a small amount to cover media.  

---edit to add---

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney)

    Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my distribution site? (#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee)

    Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

[lupinus]

Damn kids, get off my software license!

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Hawkmoon]

Would you have a problem with it if it was $5?  How about $3?

Most open source licenses have a stipulation (which I was looking for in the Apache Open Office license, and didn't see) to the effect that anyone who distributes the software is entiitled to be reimbursed for their costs in copying and distributing the software. What they're not entitled to is making a profit from it. So, if what someone is charging represents recuperating their actual costs (and $3 or $5 is probably in the ballpark) then I would not have a problem with it. My problem is with someone making a profit off what's supposed to be free.

[Hawkmoon]

hard to fault Amazon or the seller for making a buck.   That folks are not up on open source does not make selling open source materials unethical.

Actually, yes, it does. Perhaps not illegal, but very much unethical.

[Perd Hapley]

Is selling bottled tap water unethical?

[Scout26]

We frequently pay for convenience.  Fast food, Oil Changes, Car Washes, Bottled Water, the list goes on and on.  Same with "Free" software.  As mentioned above, it might be simpler (Especially for certain mothers) to get a disk that they just load into a computer, instead of having their son(s) trying to walk them through an internet download process. 

[Firethorn]

We frequently pay for convenience.  Fast food, Oil Changes, Car Washes, Bottled Water, the list goes on and on.  Same with "Free" software.  As mentioned above, it might be simpler (Especially for certain mothers) to get a disk that they just load into a computer, instead of having their son(s) trying to walk them through an internet download process. 

Hell, I mailed a USB thumb drive down to my parents to help them install windows 10.  I haven't used DVDs in so long it was cheaper to pay the $5 or so for a cheap, "smallish", 8GB thumb drive to do it.

Sheesh, I still have my first thumb drive somewhere.  64 Megabytes, and I loved it.  I carry a 64 Gigabyte one now. 

[MechAg94]

$12.95 isn't really that much considering what a lot of software goes for.  I would say someone is profiting from selling convenience. 

This is probably something my parents might buy as they do all their internet stuff via cell phone and local free wifi spots. 

[Doggy Daddy]

I remember back in the days of BBSing, I could set up a time-consuming download for some freeware or shareware.  Or when I was in the area, I would stop into various small computer stores and rummage through various shoe boxes of 360k floppies loaded with selections of freeware and shareware.  I would usually walk out with a handful of disks.  Then there were the local video rental stores that also rented software with the admonishment that you were NOT to copy it while you had it in your possession.  Yeah, right.

Needless to say, I'm not aghast, astonished, and triggered that an Amazon vendor is distributing freeware and charging to recoup their costs.  I'm not even bothered by them actually making a couple dollars of profit.

[Hawkmoon]

Is selling bottled tap water unethical?

Was that a rhetorical question?

[Perd Hapley]

Was that a rhetorical question?

Does it sound like a rhetorical question?  It's a serious question. I don't mean selling "spring water," but it turns out to be from the city water supply. I mean, is it wrong to sell bottled water that's the same as the water that people could get from their kitchen sink at home?

[K Frame]

Actually, if you go to many of the open software developer sites, they have the free download button and the "order a DVD for X dollars" button...

THOSE BASTARDS!

[Perd Hapley]

I see these in stores all the time, for around $10.



Obviously, it wouldn't be hard to make that out of widely available parts. I know a lady that started making and selling them to a nearby gas station.

Dirty capitalist swine.

[Hawkmoon]

Does it sound like a rhetorical question?  It's a serious question. I don't mean selling "spring water," but it turns out to be from the city water supply. I mean, is it wrong to sell bottled water that's the same as the water that people could get from their kitchen sink at home?

There's nothing wrong with doing that ... if you clearly identify it as municipal tap water. When it's packaged and advertised to make it appear to be super-dooper-extra-special healthy water then, IMHO, it's unethical.