×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Trying To Lure Suckers, Company Resells Open Source Blender

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the born-every-minute dept.

Businesses 294

sylphsama writes "A company named 'IllusionMage" deceptively resells a 3D open source animation package (Blender) and claims it as their own. The software, dubbed IllusionMage, portrays flagrant similarities with Blender, although outdated compared to the original. The website itself is a patchwork of sorts, using renders from different users and numerous other packages as a way to impress its visitors. Not only is that a breach of copyright, but they intentionally hide that the software is distributed under the GNU GPL license, rendering it free to use. The Blender Foundation itself has spoken out through its chairman Ton Roosendaal." I love that they promise "Free Updates For Life. All From the Thriving Open Source Community, This Software is Forever Improving."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

294 comments

Legit (2, Informative)

RobDollar (1137885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285892)

What he's doing is completely legal. Quite how much money he makes would be interesting to see, anyone buying a 3d package would surely do a small amount of research. Law of averages will prevail I suppose.

He's been doing this for ages, and does it with various other software packages.

Re:Legit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285948)

What he's doing is completely legal.

Legit?? Uhmm, thought I saw Blender Copyright 2008 in a *lot* of images; that's copyright infringement.

Re:Legit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286206)

I posted a ticket on his site implying that I would wish to see his mother raped and infected with aids. By my calculations it's all even stevens now.

Re:Legit (4, Interesting)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285980)

What he's doing is completely legal.

His customers appear happy, and given that he's marketing to die-hard Windows & Mac users (no Linux version mentioned), the fee probably makes them feel more comfortable. It's a feature...

" Wow this software is incredible. I have owned Maya, 3DMax and PoserPro. I can tell you, this is by FAR, the easiest software to use."

Isaac Oneil - Marion, NC

Re:Legit (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286186)

Considering that the site has the same layout and colours to many other scam sites (Warcraft Levelling Guide, How To Pick Up Girls Waay WAY Hotter Than Your Ex, Buy These Meds They Will Fix Everything In Existence), one can safely assume that the customers do not exist.

Re:Legit (4, Informative)

LetterRip (30937) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286258)

His customers appear happy, and given that he's marketing to die-hard Windows & Mac users (no Linux version mentioned), the fee probably makes them feel more comfortable. It's a feature...

" Wow this software is incredible. I have owned Maya, 3DMax and PoserPro. I can tell you, this is by FAR, the easiest software to use."

Isaac Oneil - Marion, NC

He creates false testimonials (I reported him to one of the corporations he was using in a false testimonial - he had fabricated the individual and testimony.)

Re:Legit (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286032)

No, what they are doing is not legal. They are taking non-free images and using it on their own site while claiming it is their own. There's nothing wrong with someone taking Blender, remaking it, licensing it under the GPL and creating a website and selling it. But that isn't what these people are doing, they are trying to deceive others and not crediting the images they use to promote their product.

Re:Legit (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286188)

But information wants to be freeeeeee!~

Seriously though, they did add notes to all of the images naming the source. Maybe they asked permission, and that was all the creators asked of them? I'd advise we hold off on the lynching until one of the artists comes out and complains.

Re:Legit (5, Informative)

LetterRip (30937) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286278)

Seriously though, they did add notes to all of the images naming the source. Maybe they asked permission, and that was all the creators asked of them? I'd advise we hold off on the lynching until one of the artists comes out and complains.

No they did not ask permission. We specifically denied them to use of some of the images and of our videos (some are CC licensed and thus we have no control over, but many are not). However he has ignored most of the requests from the Blender Foundation.

Re:Legit (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286312)

No they did not ask permission. We specifically denied them to use of some of the images and of our videos (some are CC licensed and thus we have no control over, but many are not). However he has ignored most of the requests from the Blender Foundation.

Well, if that's true, fuck 'em. And the more I look at "reviews", the more I'm inclined to believe you're being honest. That site screams scam.

Re:Legit (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286288)

Um, no they didn't. The only thing is that it says on the site is that "Images supplied by: GPL Released Wiki's " which they aren't. Because of the images cited on the page that Blender shows the artist's page which have all rights reserved to them.

Re:Legit (0)

damaged_sectors (1690438) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286666)

But information wants to be freeeeeee!~

Seriously though, they did add notes to all of the images naming the source. Maybe they asked permission, and that was all the creators asked of them? I'd advise we hold off on the lynching until one of the artists comes out and complains.

Yeah right, and I'll hold off on calling you the arseclown that you are until that happens right?. It's not his work any more than Blender is - his use of Blender is in breach of the Blender license. Period.

I'd advise you hold off on claiming it's not sex while that cock is in your mouth.

Re:Legit (2, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286322)

I thought artists didn't deserve copyrights anymore and lived on a "failed business model".

Always hard to always stay up to date on the current common wisdom of Slashdot.

Re:Legit (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286382)

There is a difference between copyright and attribution, especially when it comes to fraud. For example, the Mona Lisa is in the public domain, however, it is fraudulent for me to claim that I used Microsoft Paint to paint the Mona Lisa in an advertisement for Windows (assuming it wasn't parody).

When you have images like that on a site, one assumes that they were made with your product unless explicitly it says they weren't. When they aren't made with your product (and many of the the images weren't even made in Blender), that is fraud. And fraud undermines capitalism and is a very bad thing.

Re:Legit (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286438)

I'm saddened that your rebuttal is that it was fine to steal the images but the crime was that they didn't properly cite their stolen property.

Re:Legit (1)

angus77 (1520151) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286478)

"Stealing" from the public domain? You might want to reread what Darkness404 wrote.

Re:Legit (1)

ogl_codemonkey (706920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286574)

I think that the 'stolen' that they're referring to is that a work being out of copyright doesn't mean you can claim ownership or creation of it.

Re:Legit (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286494)

It's a legitimate stance that fraud is a worse crime than copyright infringement.

Re:Legit (1, Interesting)

ExploHD (888637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286604)

I thought artists didn't deserve copyrights anymore and lived on a "failed business model".

Always hard to always stay up to date on the current common wisdom of Slashdot.

It's not that artists don't deserve copyrights on their own works, they need to eat too, it's the fact that a copyright is now automatically granted for life PLUS for another 70 years after death. Also, it's not the artist who live on a failed business model, it's the companies who produce and distribute those works that are. The cost of recording, editing, and distributing are now minimal; artists can do it themselves and keep a better portion of the profits.

Re:Legit (0)

damaged_sectors (1690438) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286674)

I thought artists didn't deserve copyrights anymore and lived on a "failed business model".

Always hard to always stay up to date on the current common wisdom of Slashdot.

Fortunately it's still easy to spot the trolls. Like you.

Legal, under current US law. Not cool to most. (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286054)

"Legit" under standard current US law. That's not the only social circle most people are a part of, and not the only code most anyone abides by. There are rules galore in society - company policies, group behavior codes, clubs, game rules, social morals, principles, culture, tradition, decency, politics, neighborhoods, philosophy, religion, heck, just name a group, and they will have their body of rules, and some sort or another of enforcement or lack thereof. I'll wager this guy breaks a tad too many of these rules for a bunch of people, and is taking his chances. Some might be lawyers, skilled in the art of interpreting laws into purposes they were not meant for. Some might have more respect for other policies and codes, and other enforcement forms. I know I wouldn't want to be in this business with him.

Re:Legit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286114)

The open source zealots will never be happy.

Re:Legit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286388)

does this mean the guys selling copies of linux on ebay for ten bucks is legal?

Re:Legit (0)

damaged_sectors (1690438) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286690)

does this mean the guys selling copies of linux on ebay for ten bucks is legal?

Difficult for *you* to figure out where to find the licences, probably hard for you to actually read it, so understanding it would be beyond your abilities.

I'm guessing living under a bridge saves you a lot of rent huh?

Hide what? (5, Informative)

DaHat (247651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285900)

At the bottom of the page it clearly says:

Released Under GNU GPL. Source code available for download

Re:Hide what? (2)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285928)

That and the link to the tarball is held off of their "Disclaimers" page. But from all appearances they're trying to sucker the unsuspecting into paying them for a copy of Blender with no real improvements.

The summary is wrong that they're in violation of the GPL, but it is very deceptive.

Re:Hide what? (0)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285938)

It says "Main program is based on Blender and released as an open source GNU license." in the FAQ, too.

The whole thing is probably misleading and all, but there isn't anything illegal going on. Rebranding and charging for distribution of GPLed software is allowed, as long as a free download of the source is also offered.

Re:Hide what? (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285974)

Yeah, but it seems like he just recycled another page's FAQ:

"Please note the game, some content and images has been released under GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 ."

Re:Hide what? (2)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286050)

what about the examples gallery? looks like copyright infringement to me, though they do display the blender foundation copyright on them.

Re:Hide what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285966)

The source code is free to use, but not what he's using for the website. That work is copywrited. Nor, as Roosendaal's states, is luring users into thinking this is a cracked version of Autodesk 3D Max.

Re:Hide what? (1)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286204)

I've been telling Ton about scams like this since 2006 when they were cropping up on ebay. In fact, the old link used to be http://www.blender.org/cms/Re-branding_Blender.545.0.html [blender.org] . He's well aware about them, so It's good to know that he's is actually speaking out about it now.

Re:Hide what? (2)

LetterRip (30937) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286300)

Most of your emails probably went to me :) We are aware of the assorted scammers, some are scams others are misleading.

The biggest complaint I have is that he uses misleading advertising that violates our copyright.

Also he does spamming via facebook, twitter, and SEO spam farms.

Re:Hide what? (3, Insightful)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286212)

While the site and sales pitch are sleazy, it appears what you're really paying for are the video tutorials which, unless I'm mistaken, were produced by the guy running the site.

TBH, it looks more like someone's trying to drum up faux controversy to get their site linked from the front page of Slashdot.

They have released source code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285918)

On the front page of their website (footer), it explicitly says "Released Under GNU GPL. Source code available for download."

It's not illegal to repackage and sell GPL software, as long as source is made available.

What exactly are people objecting to? That they created a derivative work? Like the GPL is supposed to encourage?

Re:They have released source code (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285956)

I'm not even sure it's illegal to do it without telling anyone they're buying GPL'ed software until they open the box...

Re:They have released source code (2)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286014)

Essentially what they are selling is the training video, the software is included as a "service" and like you said they do say that it's open source, though a bit sheepishly of course. Just someone looking for something to get outraged about, nothing to see here.

GNU GPL source code available for download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285932)

At the bottom of that long page says "Released Under GNU GPL. Source code available for download."

Also the term "Blender" can be found a few times throughout the page.

Also been done with OpenOffice (3, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285936)

Anyone else remember, a few years ago, how there were web sites that offered, for something like $50, a copy of OpenOffice?

Now this isn't to say that it's wrong to sell GPL software - even RMS and the GPL v3 licenses [gnu.org] say that you can sell it for whatever you can get for it - but that anyone else is free to do the same with the copy you sell them, so the price quickly drops to zero.

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

They're doing the "sucker born every minute" thing.

Re:Also been done with OpenOffice (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285978)

"so the price quickly drops to zero"

The price was zero in the first place, so getting "whatever you can get for it" implies that the price is not really zero. It's just zero if you market it by saying "you can have it for free but buy it from me anyway."

I wonder how many marketing schools tell their students not to do that.

Re:Also been done with OpenOffice (2)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286168)

It's just zero if you market it by saying "you can have it for free but buy it from me anyway." I wonder how many marketing schools tell their students not to do that.

Obviously not the one Red Hat uses, and they've been pretty successful, doing pretty much the same thing as the company mentioned in the article (charging for free software, and implying that it's their own). CentOS seems not to have significantly hurt their profits.

Re:Also been done with OpenOffice (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286216)

Obviously not the one Red Hat uses, and they've been pretty successful, doing pretty much the same thing as the company mentioned in the article (charging for free software, and implying that it's their own).

To be fair, Red Hat employs a lot of developers, and they've contributed a lot to that free software, even if they didn't write it from scratch.

Re:Also been done with OpenOffice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286314)

They do far more than just download->burn->sell.
They not only do extensive testing and code reviews to provide the most stable linux distribution, they also have developers committing upstream.

Re:Also been done with OpenOffice (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286770)

Indeed - and they prevent people giving away Red Hat or free by invoking trademark protection on the name "Red Hat", hence the existence of CentOS, or "Red Hat without the Trademark Infringement".

Re:Also been done with OpenOffice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286536)

The price for Blender was probably zero, but there's nothing that says that a particular GPL'd piece of software has to start at zero and stay there.

I've never been a big fan of GPL; but I've laid out the following plausible scenario for making money on it before:

1. Write software under GPL.
2. Set price really, really high.
3. Sell one copy.
4. Profit!

The interesting thing about this approach is that if the price is high enough, you may actually be able to repeat step 3. Now, this is all theory. I'm not aware of anybody taking this approach, at least not on the "one guy writes program and sells it" front. However, if the price is really, really high, then I posit that you'd reduce the chances of sharing to zero. Why? Because a $20 program will get shared, and your friends wouldn't feel too bad about asking you for $20. A $2 million program won't get shared. Your friends won't ask you for it.

Of course, $2 million programs are generally not written by "one guy hacking", or bought by consumers. That's the realm of defense contractors, consultants, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if there were people operating like that, at those price levels, using GPL.

That's why I don't like GPL. Either your a volunteer making diddly, or you're a high-flying consulting firm. There's no room for the $20, middle-class spot that Shareware filled before it got squeeezed and desparately became adware/crippleware/trojans and got a bad reputation.

GPL. Killing the middle class. Just part of the general trend. Sorry. Still not a fan after all these years...

Re:Also been done with OpenOffice (3, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286056)

The problem isn't that they are reselling it, that is perfectly legal. But they are using the Blender Foundation's copyrighted images and other people's copyrighted images to do so.

Re:Also been done with OpenOffice (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286582)

You have said "No, copyright shouldn't be enforceable simply because it is silly to claim that something is property without having the entire reason we created property laws which is that two people can't do what they wish with the property simultaneously." That makes you a hypocrite and a liar.

Re:Also been done with OpenOffice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286124)

It's been done dozens of times for Wii homebrew software too. Lots of scammers sell packs of freely available homebrew tools plus warez launchers.

Re:Also been done with OpenOffice (1)

bhlowe (1803290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286200)

According to RMS, this is the way developers are _supposed_ to make money with GPL software.. GPL--keeping lawyers employed since 1989!

People have been doing this on ebay for years (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285944)

Type in "3D software" at ebay and you'll see many many examples of misleading repackaged Blender.

McBurrz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285950)

Isn't this also what McBurrz Software does?

Nothing even remotely shady about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285968)

Frankly, I didn't realize Blender was looking that good until I saw this guy's site. The neckbeards in the Open Source community could pick up a few marketing tips from it.

Sorry you didn't get the outrage you tried to manufacturer, but this site is as kosher as Christmas.

FlightGear (3, Interesting)

U8MyData (1281010) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285984)

Same, nearly identical, treatment for flightprosim.com knock off of flightgear.org. Shame....

Re:FlightGear (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286060)

... until someone gets smart and updates the meta tags for flightgear.org to add "free flightprosim clone download", etc.

... and someone else registers freeflightprosim.com and redirects to flightgear.org

Re:FlightGear (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286100)

I like FlightGear's FAQ about the issue: http://www.flightgear.org/flightprosim.html

It's very polite.

Re:FlightGear (1)

vgerclover (1186893) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286524)

Damn! It isn't identical treatment, it's the same treatment [illusionmage.com] !

Look!:

Availability:

The site is provided on an “as is” basis. At times, this website may not be available or may be affected by faults or maintenance, or by conditions outside our control. No warranty is given about the quality, functionality, availability or performance of this website or any content on this website. To the fullest extent permitted by law, all warranties, terms and conditions implied by law in relation to the performance of this website or otherwise are hereby excluded. FlightProSim reserves the right to modify or withdraw content of this website at any time.

You must not damage, interfere with or disrupt access to this website or its content, nor do anything that may impair its functionality or interfere with another person's access to or use of this website or its content. You must not use this website or content in any way that is unlawful or damaging to FlightProSim or any other person.

Typo in summary (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286028)

There is a period after the ".com" in the company name (though before the "/") which may cause some browsers to not find the domain correctly.

Re:Typo in summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286256)

he trailing dot is actually permitted according to RFC 1034. IIRC it is mentioned elsewhere.

If your browser cannot accept the trailing dot in an absolute domain name, you should submit it as a bug to your vendor.
A trailing dot is perfectly inline with the RFCs.

Re:Typo in summary (3, Informative)

bk2204 (310841) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286420)

Any browser (or other DNS-using software) that does not accept a terminal period on a domain name is broken. The root of the DNS is ., and this domain could just as well be written as "news.slashdot.org.". In fact, using a terminal . may speed up access if anything because it prevents the use of any "search" statements in /etc/resolv.conf.

Slightly less evil than you think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286044)

What first read as a guy selling Blender for profit actually turns out to be a guy selling an information tutorial DVD / PDF product for blender (albeit stealing images and not giving any credit where credit is due).

Considering he's charging $47 for it and (presumably) the dvds are not just further copyright theft, it isn't quite as bad as anybody who didn't RTFL may be led to believe.

Flightgear receives the same treatment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286052)

Various companies are selling [flightgear.org] Flightgear under different names.
The problem is those companies do not contribute anything to the real developers, most of them do not even mention what their product is based upon and do not seem to offer anything beside the repackaged and rebranded flight simulator. Worse, some even copy media used to promote Flightgear for their own purposes. It's legal but it's not very nice of them.

Noncommercial OSS licenses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286072)

For those who don't like this kind of thing being done with their open-source software, are there OSS licenses available with a clause that says you can't charge for derivative works, similar to the Non-commerical version of the CC license?

Not the greatest web site, either (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286106)

When you get down to the part where the website talks about the price:

Thats right. Your investment for the entire course is only $47 (this launch offer will closed anytime after February 25, 2011 ) And when we reach that point, I'll withdraw this offer immediately and not apologize for it.

So you have to go through several pages worth of text before you get to the price, which has a grammatical error in it's explanation. And then a vaporous promise to increase the cost later:

First I'll bump it up to $97.00...then to $197.00 and more...and it'll still be a bargain for what you're getting. So don't waste any time! Take action right now:

Although I really love how they have a 60-day trial; which apparently you pay full ($47) price for. I guess the figure after 60 days if you realize that you just paid for open source software, you won't be willing to take the initiative to ask for your money back. If you go to the order form, you find a "special offer" where they throw in some additional software for a "low additional cost!".

This reminds me a lot of the operations that take the free utilities for unlocking the Wii, and sell it at a random price promising "extras".

Re:Not the greatest web site, either (4, Funny)

MaggieL (10193) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286324)

...which has a grammatical error in it's explanation...

BZZZZT Game over, thanks for playing. ;-)

Re:Not the greatest web site, either (4, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286626)

...which has a grammatical error in it's explanation...

BZZZZT Game over, thanks for playing. ;-)

The "apostrophe - s" there shows possession. If the explanation belonged to John, we would say "John's explanation". Here I was using the informal "it" to refer to the company or product, hence "it's explanation" as the explanation belonged to it.

Re:Not the greatest web site, either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286676)

Good try, but no.

it's = it is
its = possessive form of "it"

Re:Not the greatest web site, either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286754)

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

Re:Not the greatest web site, either (2)

FilthCatcher (531259) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286768)

BZZZZT - ok so you've thought about it but you're still wrong.

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Apostrophe [wikihow.com]

Be aware of the its/it's trap. Use an apostrophe with the word "it" only when you want to indicate a contraction for "it is" or "it has." It is a pronoun, and pronouns have their own possessive form that does not use an apostrophe. For example, "That noise? It's just the dog eating its bone."

2 Hours or less (2)

denn1s (1517951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286126)

Want to create Pixar and Dreamworks In 2 Hours or Less? Easy! just ripp off this already free software, then ripp off some illegal Pixar models on the net and you are set! BEAUTIFUL Animations With Minimum Effort...
There's no way to make a decent animation in two hours, unless your movie is based on a bouncing ball in a squared box, heck even that would take more than two hours in blender, Producing 3D Animations & Graphics Ha[s] Never Been THIS EASY

Re:2 Hours or less (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286698)

There's no way to make a decent animation in two hours, unless your movie is based on a bouncing ball in a squared box, heck even that would take more than two hours in blender

Maybe not, in Blender, anyway. Blender users regularly win speed modeling competitions. In fact, a team actually entered a two-day short film contest with Blender -- the first time anyone had entered an animated film in that competition AFAIK, since any film had to be four minutes minimum, and entirely produced from scratch within the span of two days.
  The result was Grey Justice:Puncher of Men [vimeo.com]

Try it for how long? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286148)

I just noticed that their main page [computeranimations.org] says you can try it "risk-free" for 60 days. However the order form [illusionmage.com] tells you that you can try it risk-free for 8 weeks.

I also find it interesting that they don't offer a Linux version; as there is of course a Linux version of Blender...

Re:Try it for how long? (1)

weeb0 (741451) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286230)

60 days ~ 8 weeks no ? I also like very much the sentence" As seen on facebook " ????? and something I don't get : "IllusionMage is copyrighted under the United States and other World Wide Patents." We can sell a gpl software and we can get patent on it ? In the disclaimer, they says that the image are from blender.org and the filename to download is blender 2.5a1 ... is it an alpha version ?! ... Next!

Re:Try it for how long? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286390)

60 days ~ 8 weeks no ?

Close, but not exactly the same. Last I checked, 8 7-day weeks makes for 56 days. 56 is generally not accepted to be the same as 60.

Re:Try it for how long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286244)

60 days = roughly 2 months
8 weeks = roughly 2 months
Problem?

It looks like a scam site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286180)

I've seen quite a few selling open source software. I've also seen ones selling freeware that they don't have the license to resell. I'd question both his right to display the "example" images and are the tutorial videos ones that the Blender Foundation provides?

Quote from their disclaimer page... (1)

TheCreeep (794716) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286202)

GNU GPL:

IllusionMage is proudly part of the Open Source movement. Open Source software gives you more flexibility in regards to how and where you can use the software. Main program is based on Blender and released as an open source GNU license. As a note please be aware that IllusionMage is a trademark and although this code is released under a generous open license the name and logo are not.

Please note the game, some content and images has been released under GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 [gnu.org] .

Source code of these content and files is available to be downloaded from here [illusionmage.com] .

As per the license agreement, please note that there is no warranty for the program, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties provide the program “as is” without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the program is with you. Should the program prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.

Your douchebag's name is Arnell Johnson (0)

Zordrak (1626781) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286246)

At the bottom of the ClickBank page where you are asked to enter your details: [affiliate = arnell75]. Google says: http://www.google.com/search?q=arnell75 [google.com] . Gives you: http://twitter.com/#!/arnell75 [twitter.com] . Basic premise? How to use the Internet to make money. Sound familiar? Seems like the man behind this immoral scam to me.

Re:Your douchebag's name is Arnell Johnson (1)

Zordrak (1626781) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286304)

Oh.. I forgot the disclaimer. Must add one RIGHT at the bottom somewhere.. so here's some content: http://waatp.com/people/arnell-johnson/5326936/ [waatp.com] ...... ...... And now for the DISCLAIMER: It might not be Arnell Johnson. The views of this slashdot member do not represent anything other than common sense and editorial content.

Why are you all complaining? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286360)

I thought that intellectual property and copyright was all a load of crap?

Oh, I see, it's only until it affects an open source project.

Hypocrites.

They say it's blender under GPL and provide source (1)

nathanator11 (1515859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286408)

See the disclaimer page [illusionmage.com] .

"GNU GPL:
IllusionMage is proudly part of the Open Source movement... Main program is based on Blender and released as an open source GNU license... Source code of these content and files is available to be downloaded from here (link to Blender source file).
"Intellectual Property Rights:
Images are either under GPL or released under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic. Screenshots are attributed to Blender.org."

Layout (2)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286486)

Legit or not, you gotta love the layout of that website. Someone should make a wordpress theme called "scam" that looks like that...

Why does anyone care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286510)

Of course there are going to be suckers out there, but why does anyone out there care about "protecting" them? They are still getting what they paid for - a thoroughly tested and robust software package.

For $47 might the tutorials be worth it? (1)

darkjohnson (640563) | more than 3 years ago | (#35286630)

I mean - that part is original material, right? Seems to me there is a value he's added to this mix and yes the Software is just Blender but so what? And if the images were made with Blender, then they're legit too, no?

Very (L)inspiring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286662)

Gee, it looks like most of the Slashdot forum posters have turned over since a guy named Michael Robertson created a continuing storm here by launching a GNU/Linux distro called "Lindows" (later rebranded as "Linspire", after some sparring/negotiating with Microsoft). Linspire featured a installer client to a software app store called "Click 'N run", which was nothing but free software already generally available under the GPL (Gimp, etc)... but the lucky customers got to purchase them for a small amount, just so they'd appreciate the value of the software.

Morality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35286678)

There are plenty of comments here stating whether what was done was legal or not. But there are also many things while legal are immoral. These guys that are reselling a tweaked Blender as their own work are just low lives. A pox on these guys and their houses.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...