Profiting from Open Source Software?

In one article on the OpenOffice.org Mac Community website, it talked about a company that rebranded OpenOffice.org 1.0 for Mac OS X (calling it LuxuriousityOffice - what kind of name is that?) and then sell it on their website and eBay. In Luxuriousity's web page on this office product, it claims its very own Luxuriousity Office [TM] can fully read/write MS Office's files, requires only 64Mbf of RAM (but later on recommended to run on a Mac with 256Mb of RAM or more), but the actual name of the open source application under the skin, OpenOffice.org, is rarely mentioned. They claimed that they are "licensed community distributor", and would charge $9.95 for the software, where you can get it for free.

Moreover, by browsing their product pages, it seems that they are also rebranding Gimp as their own photo editing software, Audacity as their own multi-track sound recording software, Compiere as their own ERP/CRM package, QCad as their own AutoCAD replacement app, and many more others. It just sounds so dodgy.

Doing a bit of Google search on this company, it reveals that the person in charge of it, Greg Collins, has actually claimed that the free version is an unstable test version, when he is challenged about rebranding free software. There's even a Slashdot thread of comments on this topic.

Well. Some people felt differently about this kind of act. One suggested that it is actually fine for people to charge packaging and post/handling for free software, and it might be an alternative way for people to be exposed by the wealth of free software out there. And in the Slashdot comments mentioned above, some people suggested that it does not go against GPL by rebranding and selling the open source product, if he can provide support for it.

Well. What do you think?