Factory sites (F.CMS) lost the court
Surely many active MODX-developers have heard about the "Site Factory". These are the guys who made a copy of the MODX Revolution engine, called it F.CMS and rivet sites on it, posing as their own engine. But besides the fact that they took a third-party open-source engine, they also “borrowed” various third-party modules, just renamed them and sold them as their own, without indicating any authorship. Among the victims - andchir and bezumkin . The latter wrote about this situation for a long time and in detail.
Last year I had to encounter a couple of clients whose websites were long and hopelessly developed in the Factory. One of the sites was redone by me and a detailed topic was written according to the results, where I analyzed the quality of the work performed by this company. And yes, the site passed to me was designed for F.CMS, which is indeed very much like MODX Revolution, and yes, ShopKeeper by Andchir was used as an online store module .
Actually, a continuation of the article I wrote was a lawsuit filed to me “on the protection of business reputation and the recovery of reputational damage caused to the company“ Site Factory ”LLC for 500,000 rubles. It is clear, yes? On the protection of business reputation.
That is, they pulled someone else’s engine, someone else’s modules, produced them for their own, rendered services at random and then demanded “protection of business reputation”. To the account “as horrible” is a detailed topic with screenshots from their ticketing system, by which everyone can assess for themselves how well their work with clients is delivered.
')
The result of this whole story - the Court decided to refuse to satisfy the claim. Justice triumphs!
Why am I writing this on Habré? Actions Factory sites (and similar companies) violate the interests of the MODX-community (for sure there are similar companies in other specialized areas). They take someone else's intellectual work and give it away for their own, profiting from someone else's development. It would be more correct for them to indicate authorship, it would be honest. Let us hope that the publicity of this incident somehow compensates for this injustice.
UPD: People here (including the former Factory employee) are actively trying to translate the topic into the plane “Was there a violation of the GPL-license at all?” (although I didn’t talk about it at all). In response, I present an excerpt from the MODX license.
Source: forums.modx.com/index.php/topic,26417.0.html
Plus, I advise you to get acquainted with a completely similar topic: suhinin.com/2009/12/11/copyright-gnu-gpl
There's just a lot of things written about the GPL.
UPD 2: I stop responding to comments regarding licenses and their violations here. Let everyone remain with their opinions. There will be some serious documentary moves - I will unsubscribe separately.
UPD 3: Despite the fact that here some have tried to prove that the GPL allows almost everything, there is a precedent in a court case for the protection of an open-source project. habrahabr.ru/post/257149/#comment_8405951
UPD 4: Resolution .
UPD 5: Failure of appeal .
Last year I had to encounter a couple of clients whose websites were long and hopelessly developed in the Factory. One of the sites was redone by me and a detailed topic was written according to the results, where I analyzed the quality of the work performed by this company. And yes, the site passed to me was designed for F.CMS, which is indeed very much like MODX Revolution, and yes, ShopKeeper by Andchir was used as an online store module .
Actually, a continuation of the article I wrote was a lawsuit filed to me “on the protection of business reputation and the recovery of reputational damage caused to the company“ Site Factory ”LLC for 500,000 rubles. It is clear, yes? On the protection of business reputation.
That is, they pulled someone else’s engine, someone else’s modules, produced them for their own, rendered services at random and then demanded “protection of business reputation”. To the account “as horrible” is a detailed topic with screenshots from their ticketing system, by which everyone can assess for themselves how well their work with clients is delivered.
')
The result of this whole story - the Court decided to refuse to satisfy the claim. Justice triumphs!
Why am I writing this on Habré? Actions Factory sites (and similar companies) violate the interests of the MODX-community (for sure there are similar companies in other specialized areas). They take someone else's intellectual work and give it away for their own, profiting from someone else's development. It would be more correct for them to indicate authorship, it would be honest. Let us hope that the publicity of this incident somehow compensates for this injustice.
UPD: People here (including the former Factory employee) are actively trying to translate the topic into the plane “Was there a violation of the GPL-license at all?” (although I didn’t talk about it at all). In response, I present an excerpt from the MODX license.
In order to exclude further disagreements and misunderstandings, once and for all, from now on, I ask you to take into account:
- NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO REMOVE OR IN ANY WAY TO VALUE THE LINKS TO DEVELOPERS AND THE NAME OF "MODx" AS INSIDE THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, SO AND IN EXTERNAL VIEW (LOG IN TO THE SYSTEM, "/ manager /").
- No one has the right to assign themselves and / or to distribute under any kind of management system MODx as their own development.
- VIOLATION OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IS BREACH OF THE COPYRIGHT OF THE DEVELOPERS AND MAY RESULT IN SUCCESSIVE RELATIONSHIPS.
As a confirmation of my words, I cite the official answer of the developers Ryan Thrash (rthrash) and Jason Coward (OpenGeek) to my query on this topic:The MODx copyright covers the pattern for the manager. This software is very different than the license. It is a scaffolding and it’s not necessary to make a copyright.
It is a small group of people. We’re simply respectfully requesting that the “MODx” has been installed.
Source: forums.modx.com/index.php/topic,26417.0.html
Plus, I advise you to get acquainted with a completely similar topic: suhinin.com/2009/12/11/copyright-gnu-gpl
There's just a lot of things written about the GPL.
UPD 2: I stop responding to comments regarding licenses and their violations here. Let everyone remain with their opinions. There will be some serious documentary moves - I will unsubscribe separately.
UPD 3: Despite the fact that here some have tried to prove that the GPL allows almost everything, there is a precedent in a court case for the protection of an open-source project. habrahabr.ru/post/257149/#comment_8405951
UPD 4: Resolution .
UPD 5: Failure of appeal .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/257149/
All Articles