On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Tamblyne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 8/15/2012 9:06 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Tamblyne<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 8/2/2012 11:31 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:50 AM, David H. Lipman<[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: "Anastasia Cher"<[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hello there, >>>>>> I didn't know where to email, so I decided to just email to you. I >>>>>> just >>>>>> want to tell that there is an issue, some website >>>>>> www.*openoffice*.fm/suitepretends that its you. When I googled Open >>>>>> Office it was the first website >>>>>> in research so I just clicked and downloaded what they offered. The >>>>>> say >>>>>> that it's an Open Office suit. When I finished and installed it, I had >>>>>> lots >>>>>> of bugs and staff but no office. So I don't know, but these guys are >>>>>> using >>>>>> your name for scam. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is going on for numerous software from Adobe Reader to VLC Media >>>>> Player. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right. This is how it seems to work: >>>> >>>> 1) They buy advertisements on Google and Bing and spam social >>>> networks, offering OpenOffice,Free Office and similar keywords. These >>>> lure users into going to their page. >>>> >>>> 2) The pick URL's and brand the site in a way that makes it look >>>> official. >>>> >>>> 3) To download OpenOffice you need to use their special "downloader" >>>> tool. The main purpose of the downloader tool is to install other >>>> unrelated applications onto your system. It may or may not then >>>> install OpenOffice. >>>> >>>> 4) These other applications are sponsored apps, meaning another >>>> company is paying for these applications to be promoted. That is the >>>> source of revenue for the websites that do this. >>>> >>>> I did a blog post on this: >>>> >>>> http://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/how_to_safely_download_apache >>>> >>>> Note: Users are not powerless. There are places to report such >>>> issues. Some are listed in the blog post. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> -Rob >>> >>> >>> >>> Users aren't powerless, but too many of them just don't pay attention. I >>> pulled up your blog post to see if you addressed the easiest "clue" -- >>> for >>> me, anyway -- the URL itself and I see you do mention it, but maybe it >>> could >>> be more directly stated. >>> >>> *Any* URL that ends in a dot other than COM or ORG or NET should be >>> suspect >>> and probably shouldn't be clicked on at all. The ".fm" in the URL the >>> poster provided is a dead giveaway. Most of your suggestions of things >>> to >>> watch out for require the user to actually visit the page first, and too >>> many times it's already too late after that's been done. >>> >> >> I think that another issue is that users are not very Google (or Bing) >> savvy. They don't all know about sponsored links in search results, >> especially when they appear on top. They have in mind what they are >> searching for, and naturally gravitate toward the top listing. Subtle >> shading or small print does not cause them to slow down and even check >> the URL. >> >>> It always frustrates me that in these "modern times" so much time is >>> spent >>> cleaning up messes in the wake of these unethical people -- thieves and >>> liars. I have no use for them. >>> >>> For instance, I'm sure it took you a fair bit of time to write that blog >>> post -- which is very helpful. Unfortunately, I would guess that a vast >>> majority of the people who need that knowledge won't find it until >>> *after* >>> they've been screwed and go to try to find out why. >>> >> >> True. But it does have some value for us to articulate what we >> consider to be acceptable and unacceptable. As open source software >> we tread a narrow line. We're open as a matter of principle, and from >> a copyright perspective our license allows anyone to copy the software >> for any purpose. But that is only with respect to copyright. >> Trademark use is an entirely different beast, and no one is given >> permission to use our trademark in a way that confuses or harms our >> users. >> >> If we were a big corporation we'd have legions of attorneys at our >> call to apply their special powers of persuasion to remedy this. But >> we're a non-profit, relying on volunteers. So the emphasis >> necessarily focuses on user education. We're not the only product >> that runs into this problem. Many of the popular open source apps >> have the same issues, like 7-ZIP and VLC Player. It comes >> hand-in-hand with popularity. No one tries to misuse trademarks of >> unpopular programs. >> >> -Rob > > > I definitely agree with what you say, and am familiar with the issues. It's > only that the horse will have already left the barn before the people who > really need that info will find it. >
Any suggestions for how we could do this better? The one thing we're not able to do is go out, guns blazing, with cease and desist orders and DMCA take-downs, etc. We're not a big corporation. One idea -- more of a dream than a plan -- is to contact other open source projects who face similar issues, and work together to raise recognition of the issue, educate users, but also push for less expensive routes for non-profits to raise complaints in these areas. > > Tam > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
