Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
Very well said. It's not the repackaging, and it's not the charging that I find offensive. It's the lack of attribution.
|
I greatly sympathize with you, but there are real issues with requiring an open source project to require attribution.
In 2004 xFree86 (a low level GUI drawing library)
changed their license to include an attribution clause. Many many Linux distributions found this unacceptable and forked the version before the license was changed.
News at the time:
Quote:
|
To update this, the list of OS distributors opting out of XF86 Version 4.4, and future releases, based on licensing concerns continues to grow.
|
The reasons for this was incompatibility with existing license. It was also counter to the social culture of open source at the time.
The
GPL3 license that DeDRM uses requires that the license itself be included in distribution, but does not require greater attribution of work to end users. So long as Epubor includes the license file, and adhere to the license, they would be in compliance.
The GPL3 does not limit one from charging a fee for software. The goal of the GPL is the liberty to access the source code of software that one would use.
But I do agree with you that it's sh*tty of them to just take it and not give back to the community of people who created it in the first place.