Site Factory (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, named it F.CMS and riveted 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 modules of third-party developers, also renamed them and sold them as their own, without indicating any authorship. Among the victims are andchir and bezumkin . The latter wrote about this situation for a long time and in detail.

    Last year I had to come across a couple of customers whose sites were developed hopelessly in the Factory for a long time. One of the sites was redone by me and a detailed topic was written based on the results, where I analyzed the quality of work performed by the specified company. And yes, the site that was transferred to me was developed by F.CMS, really very much like MODX Revolution, and yes, ShopKeeper by Andchir was used as an online store module .
    Actually, the continuation of the article I wrote was a lawsuit filed against me “on protecting business reputation and recovering reputational harm inflicted on the company“ Factory of Sites ”LLC for 500,000 rubles. I see, huh? On the protection of business reputation.

    That is, they pulled someone else’s engine, someone else’s operating modules, passed them off as their own, rendered the services horribly, and then they demand “protection of business reputation”. Into the account "anyhow" - a detailed topic with screenshotsfrom their ticket system, according to which everyone can evaluate how well they have delivered customer service.

    The result of this whole story - The court decided to dismiss the lawsuit. Justice triumphs!

    Why am I writing this in Habré? The actions of the Site Factory (and similar companies) violate the interests of the MODX community (probably there are similar companies in other specialized areas). They take someone else's intellectual work and pass it off as their own, capitalizing on other people's developments. It would be more correct for them to indicate authorship, it would be honest. Let's hope that the publicity of this incident at least somehow compensates for this injustice.

    UPD:Here, people (including a former employee of the Factory) are actively trying to translate the topic into the plane "Was there any violation of the GPL license?" (although I didn’t talk about it at all). In response to this, I quote an excerpt from the MODX license.
    In order to exclude further disagreements and misunderstandings, once and for all from now on, please take into account:
    • NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DELETE OR IN ANY WAY CHANGE THE LINKS TO THE DEVELOPERS AND THE TITLE “MODx” AS INSIDE THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AS WELL AS EXTERNAL (LOGIN TO THE SYSTEM, "/ / manager
    • NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO ATTRIBUTE MYSELF AND / OR DISTRIBUTE ANY MODX MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AS AN OWN DEVELOPMENT UNDER ANY KIND.
    • VIOLATION OF THESE CONDITIONS IS VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT OF DEVELOPERS AND MAY RESULT IN RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITSELF.


    As a confirmation of my words, I give the official answer of the developers Ryan Thrash (rthrash) and Jason Coward (OpenGeek) to my request on this topic:

    The MODx copyright covers the look and feel parts of MODx, and our implementation of the manager. This is very different than the License which permits free distribution of the software. Our stance is that removal of our copyright and trying to pass MODx off as your own creation is very much not acceptable, and we will offer no support to any individuals that choose to do so, including removing and deleting their users from the forums.

    There are tens of thousands of hours from a relatively small group of people that have gone into making MODx what it is today. We simply respectfully request that "MODx" itself and links to our support resources remains any time it's installed for use on websites.

    Source: forums.modx.com/index.php/topic,26417.0.html

    Plus, I advise you to familiarize yourself with a completely similar topic: suhinin.com/2009/12/11/copyright-gnu-gpl
    There are a lot of things written about the GPL .

    UPD 2: I stop responding to comments regarding licenses and their violations here. Let everyone stay with their own opinion. There will be some serious documentary shifts - I will unsubscribe separately.

    UPD 3: Despite the fact that here some tried to prove that the GPL allows almost everything, there is a precedent for a case that was won in court to protect an open source project. habrahabr.ru/post/257149/#comment_8405951

    UPD 4: Resolution .

    UPD 5: Denial of appeal .

    Also popular now: