Seems like someone is charging people 7 bucks on the Microsoft store for DT…also means Microsoft likely get a cut…seems a bit weird unless they think people won’t research the software??
Yes we know about this. They sell several FOSS apps but don’t contribute back at all…
Jesus Christ, at least capitalize the name correctly.
2 Likes
I just went ahead and reported the project. No idea if it will help but figured it couldn’t hurt to try.
2 Likes
Mac version screenshots on the Windows Store: check
Screenshots of wildly out-of-date versions of the software: check
2 Likes
Jerks…
I tried to report it but the submit button would work just seemed frozen…glad you did. May not do anything but at least it should be challenged
Is there something in the licence that precludes people selling the software for money?
Not at all - but there is a problem with the name/logo being used (I realize that the dt team may not have actually trademarked the logo/name yet).
Ok I assumed that if the name and logo were included in a github project marked with GPLv3 then they were also included in that licence (obviously not a lawyer and some quick googling suggests maybe it’s not that simple).
Probably achieve naff all but I reported it too.
Just found this bargain only $49.99 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/gimp-photo/9mwk8qxcn72h?activetab=pivot:overviewtab#
Old news. If that’s an issue then I wonder why the devs put no version in the store and get a trickle of deserved income?
1 Like
Nobody wants to jump through all the hoops to do it. It has been looked into.
Maybe the most effective way to get them removed from the store is to notify AppleAdobe. After all, they’re wrongly using the Lightroom name.
edit: don’t know how I managed to get that mixed up
1 Like
If you want to get rid of this, then you‘d better tell adobe that there’s someone using their trademark 
This is just another reason why I don’t use Windows. Windows likes to charge for everything, even the free stuff
From my limited understanding (IANAL and so on) you don’t need to register a trademark to make it enforceable. If you can show a track record of using a name and logo by a project related to a particular product (software) before the alleged infringement, that trademark is enforceable. It may become unenforceable, if said project does not take any steps to protect its trademark. Protecting does not necessarily mean forbidding any 3rd party use, but e.g. some kind of quality control and/or delivery requirements (e.g. here both the bad documentation (Q&A) and making money off the trademark would apply). Of course actually enforcing a trademark is a different beast. Starts with someone caring enough to put in work into a policy, the “project stakeholders” (probably hard to define in itself) to agree to have a trademark and then enforcing it, i.e. going against infringements like the store listing here (if that is considered an infringement). Some resources:
https://google.github.io/opencasebook/trademarks/
http://modeltrademarkguidelines.org/index.php/Home:_Model_Trademark_Guidelines
https://fossmarks.org/post/
But again, probably all moot as my impression is that darktable is in the usual situation for such projects: People involved are motivated to create a technically excellent product, not dealing with paragraphs 
(Which - if that’s not obvious - I can very much relate to).
This isn’t sold by “Windows” (or Microsoft).
But enabled by Microsoft.
1 Like
Just like all the clones and shit on the apple appstore or Google playstore.
Blaming a hosting provider for the stuff people do on itz doesn’t make sense.
Specially since in this case - although unethical - it is probably allowed legally.