There are more open source licenses than the GPL, the NC-SA Creative Commons License is a fully open source license that prohibits making money from it. It’s better to come up with an open source license where you can’t ask for any money at all and you have to bear all the distribution costs yourself and it’s still open source. There are even cases where no binary distribution is allowed at all because a library is implemented, for example, patents, where only the source can be distributed, for example, this is a problem with a DAW / audio program that wants to implement ASIO .

There are of course ways that distribution costs (for example, the cost of sending Uubuntu disks was a few euros, or the popular floppy disks / CDs that you had to pay for of course, but also the costs that Microsoft charges if you want to have them in the storefront) ) may be covered under a “no commercial use” license, but there is a large gray area for what is legal and ethical.

where I think where @gg141717 The point is that a third party putting an open source product without any investment/participation in the market is not so much against the law, but the fact that rebranding is there in this way simply doesn’t give a good picture. Kind of like eBay where with every major online release a bunch of people put up the box for sale hoping to catch someone who isn’t paying enough attention.

Is this against the law? Not really, you can put it up for sale (provided it’s not an illegal product) whatever you want and at whatever price you want. It’s actually a scam, but since they put it in the title it’s only about the box, legally that’s okay. A market filled with these types of scammers does not give a good picture as a place where you can buy something safely without having to check every point in the product description to make sure you are not being scammed. And this is where the Microsoft Store fails and they seem to be working hard to counter it.