200!

How is it not ethical if it's allowed for by the license under which all this stuff was released?

What's unethical is releasing your software under the GPL and then calling people who make use of the product in the spirit of GPL crooks and theives.

Fris has helped me out a lot with setting up a site and helped with wordpress plugins
i dont understand the GPL thing and i dont really care i sure he would not sell something
that he has no right to sell

That's just my two cents, doesn't mean i'm right or wrong.

I didn't read this thread, but I found your post pretty damn stimulating! :thumbsup

Here's to truth in advertising! :drinkup

:stoned

ADG

Man, you clearly don't understand GPL!!!!
This thread is way to much! I do understand Fris is a nice guy.. but the fact is he sells something (even for a good cause) he has NO RIGHT to. Some of the stuff is ok, some of the stuff is not legit. I also understand you don't like Anna ...we all get it. But ..this time she WAS RIGHT asking questions about that pack.

Stop using "spirit of GPL" .. you can't sell other's people work .. you can use it .. and sell only your "improvement" on that product.
Improving a GPL product ...makes another product which is yours (see Chrome out of Mozilla project, Android out of Linux, etc).. which you can sell or freely distribute.

What did fris add on all those GPL products? what about the products that are not under GPL?

You don't understand GPL at all.

That applies to anything released as GPL.

As I said before I am assuming that everything in the pack is covered by GPL.

My two cents for the GPL discussion
 

Here is a quote from Trademark Guidelines. - Red Hat, which will help you to understand how the GPL 2.0 works regarding to commercial products:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guidelines For Marketing Software Products Containing Unmodified Red Hat® Linux® Software

As a licensee under the GPL and other applicable copyright licenses, you may replicate the software contained in Red Hat® Linux® or Red Hat® Enterprise Linux®, whether downloaded from an FTP site or other electronic download site or copied from a CD originally produced by Red Hat, and may market the replicated product in accordance with the terms of the copyright licenses. However, it would be confusing to consumers if you identify such a replicated product as Red Hat® Linux®. If you do not qualify under and comply with the “Trademark Permissions” but want to produce and market copies of Red Hat® Linux® or Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® software, as it is developed and released by Red Hat without modification, you may do so, provided you strictly follow these guidelines:

A. You must comply with all applicable copyright licenses for the software and the guidelines in this document.

B. You may not name or brand your product “Red Hat Linux,” “Red Hat Enterprise Linux,” or use the Red Hat trademarks in any way, either on your product or in advertising. You must use a different trademark for your product that will not cause confusion with the trademarks of Red Hat or another party, will not indicate or imply that your product originates from or is sponsored or approved by Red Hat, and which otherwise complies with applicable trademark laws. Please also refer to the guidelines for use of the brand “Red Hat” and for plays on the words “Red Hat.”

C. You may not state that your product “contains Red Hat Linux X.X.” or “Red Hat Enterprise Linux X.X.” This would amount to impermissible use of Red Hatʼs trademarks. You may resell the boxed version of your software that you purchased from Red Hat so long as you sell the original discs and documentation included with the boxed version. However, if you have registered the product with Red Hat for purposes of obtaining support services, you may not transfer your right in those support services, and you must advise the purchaser that they are not receiving support services.

D. You must modify the files identified as REDHAT-LOGOS and ANACONDA-IMAGES so as to remove all use of images containing the “Red Hat” trademark or Red Hatʼs Shadow Man logo. Note that mere deletion of these files may corrupt the software.

NOTE: The software contained on the Linux Application CDs that may be contained in our boxed product include some proprietary products. If you wish to distribute any of that proprietary application software, you must obtain a license to do so from the owner of that proprietary application software. Please do not copy any proprietary application software contained on the Linux Application CD unless the license for that software permits you to do so or you have obtained a separate license from the owner of the proprietary application software.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see in the NOTE section, even the GPL package (CD/DVD/binary archive etc) may contain a proprietary code which can be distributed w/o the author's permission. The re-distribution of non-proprietary GPL parts of code is allowed but with the restrictions (sections B, C and D).

Sorry for a typo. The comment below the quoted text should be read as:

As you can see in the NOTE section, even the GPL package (CD/DVD/binary archive etc) may contain a proprietary code which CAN NOT be distributed w/o the author's permission. The re-distribution of non-proprietary GPL parts of code is allowed but with the restrictions (sections B, C and D).

Sorry, but you are the one who doesn't understand it. Ethical or not, if you release something under the GPL and I buy or download it, I can do WHATEVER I WANT WITH IT. I can use it, I can modify it, I can sell it with or without modifications.

If you're going to tell something that they don't know what they're talking about, it's probably best to at least have SOME IDEA of what you're talking about. :1orglaugh

Here's the FIRST FUCKING LINE of the GPL Terms and Conditions in the license.

And I don't like Anna only because she has the attitude of a real bitch, and I don't approve of her starting trouble and playing all dumb and innocent like she had no idea what she was doing. That snatch knew exactly what she was doing and was trying to stir up trouble and make herself look good in the meantime.

That's rich coming from you.

:2 cents:

i hope this gets settled. peace out!

No, you don't understand GPL.

GPL software can be given away, sold for a fee or modified then sold, or given away with the requirement that the original software be available and the license therein be provided with the transferred software.

Many Wordpress developers release software under GPL terms however sell the software. A large proportion of them, in my experience, know that the GPL allows for that software to be given away/resold however some of them (as this thread shows) will try and impose terms on the GPL that just cannot be enforced.

If the software Fris sold was GPL licensed then he did NOTHING wrong.

The OP is clueless and the smarter posters have called her out for that fact. The people saying Fris did something wrong obviously need a lesson in the GPL.

It surprises me that a license that has been used and revised over many many years, longer than this forum has been in existence, is so badly misunderstood.

Please point out one instance where I attempted to drag someone through the mud who didn't deserve it. Just one :winkwink:

Good Pussy Lives = G.P.L

Where exactly? I'm trying to find some.

my bad people:

"GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price."

i initially stopped reading after this "Any licensee who adheres to the terms and conditions is given permission to modify the work, as well as to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative version. The licensee is allowed to charge a fee for this service, or do this free of charge." modify the work = this service?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

Let's just assume everything on fris pack is under GLP .. and use this as a learning opportunity on GPL.

Don't kill me pls!!

At least you can admit you were wrong, unlike the stubborn bitch who got all this started. :winkwink:

I think it's safe to assume that all the stuff in the pack was GPL. fris wouldn't have thrown his reputation in the garbage for a few bucks.

There's really no need to call her bitch, sup with that?

We're all grown ups here and can learn to agree to disagree. She may be wrong or may be right, it seems she's wrong on this one and yeah, she wanted the attention i guess, but that doesn't make it for that language. I don't like her posting style either, she's got an attitude, but that's how she is, that's how she plays it. Again, that doesn't put right on wrong to call her this and that.

Chill an' peace, don't be a bitch, hah. :)

She's posting on a place called GFY and stirring up trouble. If she can dish it out, she can surely take it back.

She's a bitch. Straight up. I have no problem labeling her as such, and it seems plenty of people in this thread now agree.

So how would everyone feel if the OP obtained a copy of the package fris sold and offered it for a lower price, undercutting fris?

Please do this as an experiment OP.

Most people here who aren't scumbags and have been around long enough to know that fris is good people and brings a lot to this board would probably be opposed to putting any money in this twat's hand.

If I wanted this and she was selling it for $25 to fris' $50...I'd give him my money every time.

Agreed. :2 cents:

There's no way in hell I would recommend anyone doing business with her after this performance.