I sent Mindmaster the following (admittedly snotty) e-mail message:

"You must have been very angry when you discovered that someone has ripped off your program and is giving it away free as open source software under the name of Freemind. I mean your program is identical to Freemind, so why would anyone want to pay for Mindmaster when they can get Freemind free? That must be very frustrating to you, to know that someone else is taking credit for your hard work and innovation. Only a very unethical person could do something like that."


Here is the polite response from Mindmaster:

"Thank you very much for your email.

"As you know, Freemind is licensed as open source software. And MindMaster is licensed under the same license. I also stated that the credit within MindMaster. Nobody take other's credit. I changed the name of the original software and provide the tech support for registered user just like what RedHat did for Liunx and another company did for Lindows.

"Please let me know if you have any future questions!

"Thanks, Allan Wang"

I guess this is perfectly acceptable behavior. Yikes! Let the buyer beware.

Steve Z.

IMHO, MindMaster could weasel out from under your sally because you emphasized the wrong harm. The culpable harm is not to the authors of FreeMind, but to the purchasers of MindMaster. As to their duties to Freemind, they did conform to the terms of the open source contract. It's of the essence of open source as I understand it to allow the use of others' work for any sort of pecuniary gain, provided ONLY that the authors are given the contractually required recognition. (What I don't understand about Open Source is the economic motivation, if any. I take it the economic motivation comes from the recognition. In substance, you get recognized, and it helps you get jobs. But I've never seen the motivation analyzed, and I might have it wrong.)

The difference between Redhead Linux in relation to UNIX and MasterMind in relation to FreeMind is that buyers of Redhead invariably know that the same code is available for free, and they opt for the technical support and other amenities they must pay for. Buyers of MindMaster (it seems evident to me) AS A RULE do NOT know that FreeMind, from which it is wholly derived, is a free product. The way MindMaster is written up on the web site, I would go so far as to say they *imply* MM is original with developer. If a closer analysis than I have made sustains that impression, MindMaster is colorably liable for fraud.

Stephen Diamond

I just completed a friendly exchange with Allan. He was open to my suggestion that the information related to open source, FreeMind and MindMaster be included on the web site, and has asked that the changes be made. As I understand it, that would bring MindMaster fully wiithin the accepted protocol for use of open source programs. I say fully because Allan advised that this information is already provided to purchasers. My sense is that he wants to do the right thing in terms of presenting MindMaster to the publc.

Daly