It seems there are free code signing certificates for opensource, in case you are interested.
(Well there were free, now they charge 14$ per year, not too much).
The certificate in question is now more than $77 per year… In market where “typical” code signing cert is from $59…
1 Like
This post seems to imply publishing is now free:
This doesn’t work any more but this moron doesn’t give up: Microsoft Apps.
There are another guy doing the same*hit: Microsoft Apps.
Hello,
Has the Darktable logo been registered?
Greetings from Brussels
Christian
why? darktable is gpl so it can be forked modified and even packaged commercially.
Quite more interesting is that the package is named LightRoom - even the usage of an uppercase R doesn’t prevent it violating adobes trademark.
So if they doesn’t bother why wasting time here and give more publicity to that?
Yes, they have the right to package it commercially provided they also offer the corresponding source code (possibly for a nominal fee to cover costs). No mention of that in those offers…
And as neither of the offers shows any contact information…
who cares …
if a buyer tries to find support he will find out that he wasted money for quite old stuff no one supports
Other than the potential reputational damage to the real darktable.
1 Like
Where’s the reputation damage? There’re no issues reported from users of that stuff and even in here there’s just complaining about an app no one uses 
you know Streisand effect?
People will buy that version of the app, run into problems, get no help from the “vendor” and never even think / know to look elsewhere for help, a newer version, etc. All they’ll “know” is they bought darktable and it was “garbage”. That’s what they’ll tell their friends. We’ll never know of it here.
That’s not good for anyone. Reputation takes a hit and we never even know it.
2 Likes
At the end of the day, the only persons able to take action (as far as it goes) are the darktable copyright owners. All I wanted to do was indicate why action was possible, even under the GPL (look up “busybox” ).
who is copyright owner in a copyleft legal framework?
darktable/LICENSE at master · darktable-org/darktable · GitHub permits commercial use, modification, distribution …
you can buy the app and resell it - and that dude can’t stop you from doing this …
Every contributor, unless they performed copyright assignment as a part of contribution, whether through a CLA or other assignment process. (Did you know that the champion of copyleft frameworks requests that contributors assign copyright? Why the FSF Gets Copyright Assignments from Contributors - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation )
Yeah but that doesn’t make a difference if we are talking about trying to stop someone who only trys to profit without giving anything back, as in this case.
We would need a trademark infringement filed for the dt logo. GPL et al do nothing to stop this.
1 Like
You’d first have to figure out who to sue, and hope (s)he can pay…
GPL could come into play when the seller refuses to provide source code (clause 6 of the licence)
I don’t know whether Microsoft would act to remove the offers if contacted on either ground.
Depends on what the goal is. If you just want them to stop distributing it as “darktable” then you don’t really need them to pay.
lawyers…
why don’t you simply try if that’s so important… most here are complaining but even not writing a mail to Microsoft or Adobe (They have a trademark that’s obviously violated) to indicate this …
So all that reasoning is just a tempest in a teacup
So I can’t take action, as I’m not a party to any potential conflict.
Also, if you read my posts, you’ll see I’m not complaining about those who sell dt.
I only try to point out that the notion “the code is GPL, so nothing can be done” is wrong. Copyright holders can do something when the licence is not respected. Whether it’s useful or worthwhile, is for them, and them only, to decide.