On Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 4:01 AM Ben Cooksley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 7:16 AM Albert Vaca Cintora > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > But if there are situations where third parties are living off our > good name, > > > we should fight this. We already have the rights to do so. > > > > Should we? Isn't that the same that RedHat, SUSE, Canonical, etc. do? > What's wrong with charging for our apps as a distributor? > > There isn't anything wrong with charging for our applications as a > distributor. > > The potential problem arises if they portray themselves as an > 'official' version, which is a label only we can provide. > It is especially problematic if the binary they've packaged contains > malware or other alterations that have a negative impact on the user > experience, which users will attribute to us, not the distributor of > the software. > > The situation with Redhat/SUSE/Canonical is also slightly different, > as we already have an established relationship with all three of > those. This includes them receiving early access to our releases along > with them being subscribed to our security pre-announce service. > > In this case, the vendor in question has not made contact in any form with > us. > Just quick note the version of kdiff3 on the windows store carries the old icon. This seems to imply it was made before kdiff3 joined kde. Like during the 4 year lapse of maintainership. Let's make sure we have all the facts here. > > Cheers, > Ben >
