Slashdot Mirror
GPL'd Code Finds New Home
The proof was in the pudding, so to speak. Or at least, the proof was in downloading and installing the Windows version, then running the strings command against their compiled binary. Lo and behold, some of the strings of text included such gems as "Visit the Everybuddy website at http://www.everybuddy.com". Now how did that get in there?
(You could go a step further and dissassemble the Windows executable, examining the flow of their code and comparing it to the Everybuddy code. But it seems to me that the reference to Everybuddy is sufficiently damning already.)
Someone at DSF Internet took a shortcut to developing their own interoperable instant messenger client, and ported the Everybuddy code instead of starting from scratch. This isn't a bad thing - it's the whole purpose of open source, duh - but since the code was licensed under the GPL, a price was demanded in return: the Windows source code should be made available. It wasn't, of course.
Both Slashdot and the developer contacted this company, which is based in New Delhi, India. They initially denied that there was any GPL'd code in their product, but when presented with the evidence, the story changed, and it now seems that they're going to take some action. The final outcome isn't known - perhaps they'll publish the Windows code, perhaps they'll rewrite the whole thing from scratch, perhaps they'll just edit out the Everybuddy references and recompile. <shrug>
This situation seemed to be one tailor-made for the GPL. Code existed for one platform, there was the desire but not the ability to port it to another, and someone else saw the same opportunity and the usefulness of the code base, and had the ability to port the code. In theory, this should have been a win-win: the company in India gets a fast-track to development, and the open source project gets a Windows port of their code. But there isn't much of an enforcement mechanism to make everyone play fair.
Are the developers of Everybuddy likely to file a suit in India for violations of their license agreement? My guess is, no. Protest march outside their offices? Brick through the window? Hire some guys named Guido, errr, Rajanav, to go and break some kneecaps? No, and no, and no. The only real enforcement mechanism is a sort of peer pressure or the threat of public exposure, and this may or may not be sufficiently persuasive.
Incidents like this are only going to increase. There's at least a few possible responses:
- Just ignore it. The objective is to get the code out there, that's working, and generally enough people will obey the rules that the GPL will be effective in its goals.
- Spaz out over it. Scour the web looking for possible GPL-infringers and mailbomb them into submission.
- Send email to slashdot. Preferably misspelled email with unique grammatical qualities.
- Send email to Richard Stallman. Don't use pine to send it.
- CowboyNeal.
Seriously, this is an open question which needs to have some thought put into it. I can imagine some possibilities - perhaps a sort of "GPL Insurance", where GPL'd projects can pay into a pot of money to be used for sending legal nasty-grams and other enforcement. But I'm not sure that that's really the right course of action. Fundamentally, enforcing the GPL would be an extraordinarily difficult task - it's very difficult to detect abuses in the first place, and then you face national borders and other obstacles. Perhaps it is better to not worry about it too much, to save the collective energy of the community for more important purposes, and to simply realize that there will be abuses.
Update: 01/02 01:02 PM by michael : About five minutes before this story went live, I heard back from Ben Rigas of Everybuddy that DSF Internet is going to do the Right Thing and post the source code to their messenger program. This is excellent news, and hopefully will result in a robust cross-platform instant messenger program. However, I think the point I made above still stands: there will be cases where persuasion doesn't work, and the community should have a plan for dealing with those (even if the plan is "do nothing").
run 'strings win.com' on Microsoft's latest products.
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
My friends intro to law class had the project of finding "exploits" in the GPL. It's hard to prove that there was a violation unless you get one of the developers to sqeal =)
I am !amused.
Since then, they've taken the download down, and put up a message about "enhancements".
I wonder what kind of enhancements; the inclusion of source code, or the removal of distinguishing marks...
-
doesn't Jabber do the same thing as Everybuddy on Windows?
You have almost no recourse if you have not registered the copyright on your software. It only costs a few bucks, and you have to disclose the first fifteen and last fifteen pages of your source code like that's any big deal. Once you have a registered copyright, you can sue the bastards for treble actual damages PLUS statutory damages.
-russ
p.s. been there, done that.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Caught red-handed, and now they're ready to cooperate. The ultimate noble gesture, sorta. The fact remains that these people(or someone in the company) tried to rip-off open source. What kind of punishment is it to let them get off with doing what they should have done in the first place?
I mean, really. Suppose the punishment for stealing was being forced to return the stolen goods, end of story, no ostricizing, no apology. Where's the accountability? Where's the programmer or manager who did this crawling around on his hands and knees with "Traitor" written all over his forehead? Where's the remorse? I don't want to see blood, but I do want the name of the responsible party made known to the community, maybe even for blacklisting at open-source shops.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
"About five minutes before this story went live, I heard back from Ben Rigas of Everybuddy that DSF Internet is going to do the Right Thing and post the source code to their messenger program. This is excellent news, and hopefully will result in a robust cross-platform instant messenger program."
Absolutely fabulous! Do we get to party? Is there some sort of theme music that could convey the happiness? No offense, but Jabber is several years from being usable (will check out Jabber for BeOS when I go on vacation next week)... TiK r0xx0rz, but whoever designed the UI needs a spanking. A high quality non-AOL messaging client can only be a Good Thing.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Email the developers of the GPL'd app, and the developers of the closed source app that is ripping off the GPL'd code, about the violation.
If you're the GPL code developer whose stuff was ripped off in a closed source app: sue the infringer. (If financially possible).
I have just 1 question:
What is the penalty for violating the GPL?
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Slashdotters: CowboyNeal! CowboyNeal! CowboyNeal!
DSF Internet: No, please! No more!
Slashdotters: We will say CowboyNeal to you again if you do not appease us.
DSF Internet: You are most gracious oh Slashdotters. What must we do?
Slashdotters: You must release the source for your instant messager or re-write your own without any GPLed code.
DSF Internet: Oh yes, gracious Slashdotters. It shall be done.
Slashdotters: And then you must take down the largest corporation in the world. With.....A HERRING!!!!
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
If companies take open source software and incorporate it into their products in violation of the license, that's quite difficult to detect. Even if it is detected, it takes a lot of legal muscle to actually prove (which involves getting the company to let someone look at their source code).
On the other hand, any claim of copyright or patent infringement can be easily supported by examining the source code of open source systems. In fact, since open source code is often indexed by search engines, just searching the web for a good combination of keywords can give companies quick hits on potentially infringing systems.
Of course, in theory, open source code should not be able to violate the copyright of proprietary source code: if it isn't published, it shouldn't be copyrightable, and if it's protected by trade secrets, it's the companny's problem to protect it. But I doubt that's going to work in practice. And it still leaves open source open to patent infringement claims.
Maybe it's time for the law to recognize and encourage free, open source software and create specific protections for it.
Actually, it was quite easy to prove a violation. The CEO basically admitted that they'd stolen the code (although he was just *full* of justifications). Could have gotten thousands of dollars if I'd known what I know now. Also helps to know a copyright lawyer, hehe.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Not just the authors of EveryBuddy should be ticked off, but the authors and contributors to every GPL/LGPL library USED by EveryBuddy. i.e. libyahoo, libfaim, etc.
...but organized protests might. I know email-campaigns can be less than effective, but in the crush of modern software design, companies large and small spend a lot of time defending themselves against potential "problems" which might affect both their customers and investors.
/.
Just the potential stink of a lawsuit will make many of these shops, large and small, come crawling back to the table. Like the public humiliation sentences of the eighteenth century, we have our modern versions of the pillory. Put up a web site with blatant violators of standards, code rip-off artists and...
Oh, right.
Regardless, isn't it fair play to rip them off in return? Put up their port, for free, under your name. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Put up the reason you did it too. That will bring them to your door, for good or ill. At least next time they'll be careful about ripping off code.
Seriously, if all you do is try to ignore them, you will be as successful as King Arthur was against the French in the Holy Grail movie. It just doesn't work. Call them out, it's the only way to deal with sneaks and bullies, believe me. Next time, win or lose, chances are you will not be bothered by them again. Probably the worst that will happen is a lot of shoving and a bloody nose.
The company should only have stolen BSD licensed code if they were't planning on making the source available. Sheesh.
How many other companies are doing the same thing?
Little Debian: America's #1 Snack Distro!
The FSF have much experience dealing with GPL
violations. I don't know if they can assist if they
dont have the copyright on the software, but if
you transfer them the copyright even after the violation
has occured they are still legally able to file a suit, provided that the code was under the GPL at the time of the violation.
DISCLAIMER: IANAL. In fact, I'm probably wrong.
I know that everyone hates lawyers; however, commercial entities will not respect the GPL unless there are consequences. Just look at how hard it was to get companies to respect "closed" patents and "closed" copyrights. Yes, we want everyone to use GPL code, but some companies will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance with everything using GPL'd code means.
What would registering get you except to possibly make it slightly easier to prove your case in court?
Do you submit a separate copyright application for every version? Every CVS nightly build?
Even if you haven't registered the copyright you still have a copyright and can sue just fine; I've known people who have done it.
You could put a key in your code. For example, in a critical piece, put some integer constants that would be unique to what you are trying to do. Then write a program to search for that. If you were copied, you could find those keys and have a smoking gun (or smoking NSA_KEY).
I believe everybuddy supports multiple IM systems at the client level (ie, it connects to multiple services) whereas Jabber works at the server level. That is, you connect ONCE to the jabber server, and the Jabber service in turn connects to the different IM services (via "transports")
A subtle difference, but the idea is that by keeping everything at the server end, you don't have to update the clients every time an IM service changes its protocol.
There are other differences, of course (jabber uses XML to encode messages, etc) but just wanted to note there were some design differences.
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Are the developers of Everybuddy likely
to file a suit in India for violations of
their license agreement?
Would it have been hard to go after them just because this company's based outside the West? The same problem's happened before, except it was a Chinese company that time; Bruce Perens commented at the time:
On quite a separate point, the idea of a "GPL insurance" reminds me of RMS's idea for a "software tax", which would fund the development of free software... perhaps, in the end, it would need to be used both for attack and for defence.
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
ending legal nasty-grams
Dont we all rage against Big Co. everytime they pull something like that - micheal; what are you thinking? Im not sure what should be done - but thats not it.
AFAIK, if you have a copyright in any signatory of the Berne convention on intellectual property then you have a copyright in all other signatories. I don't know who exactly is and isn't a signatory, but I get the impression it's most countries. Whether the copyright is actually enforced is another story....
Nothing like bringing stuff to light on /.. People fear the dreaded /. effect enough, but they fear us all calling, emailing, etc. even more.
IANAL, but I doubt anyone will ever be sued for "violating the GPL". Instead, people who violate the GPL will be sued for copyright infringement. The defendant will then have to argue
1) that the GPL is valid but flawed ("yes, I'm bound by the GPL, but I found this loophole")
or
2) code released under GPL is actually public domain, despite prominent copyright notices.
Can someone run the strings command on the other software provided by these nice folks? They have a lot of modules to their portal system, if we know they are using gpl'ed code in one module, what about the others?
Disclaimer: IANAL etc. In fact, IAALocal User
In Windows98, the bog-standard CD Player which comes in "Multimedia Accessories" allows you to choose your CDROM drive: The drop-down list contains "\Device\CdRom0", "\Device\CdRom1" etc.
Or (more likely) I'm An Idiot.
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
First this program.. what next? PySol stolen? Someone should look into Lemmings.. maybe they stole the source from Pingus! Pingus3D is out now.. we'll just wait and see if Lemmings3D comes out, then we'll nab them using a combinations of strings, strace, and my Sega Genesis' Blast Processing unit.
A one stop shop for (1) AOL IM (2) Yahoo IM and (3) ICQ exists for windows called /. is ~ 5-10 users; lets see if this number improves as a result of this post).
It's still in windoze beta. One of the kooler features shows Bravenet Messenger users who are browsing the same web page as you are. (current bravenet community for
Remember when warez was cool? The FSF has always been an apologist for warezing. They come oh so close to advocating piracy on their website, without actually crossing over that fine line of advocating breaking the law.
When IP is a burden to the left, they are willing to circumvent it via warez. When anti-IP is a burden to the right, they ware willing to circumvent it via GPL violation.
These types of incidents may or may not accelerate if the economy heads into a recession. On one hand, socialism is one of the answers people grope for when the economy heads south. Socialism tends to level the playing field. Thus, the more people below the economic mean, the greater mass appeal of socialism. In a bad economy, you might imagine that the GPL would fare better.
On the other hand, software is not rice or heating oil. The only people that really need software are people in the IT industry. Socialism's tendency to regress all players to the mean is actually bad news for these guys, because they were on top before. They were willing to bear the cost of socialism when they were flying high, but when times are tight they are going to look for ways to cut costs, and releasing code is a cost.
IANAEconomist, but this is all very interesting. I guess I'm somewhat of an "armchair economist". Another way to view the GPL is as a price ceiling of zero (the bit about selling free software trumpted by Free Software adovocates is utter bollix to an economist). Now, what would happen if the government set a price ceiling of zero on wheat? You can bet your sweet bippy there would be plenty of guys with trucks on the corner going psst--, hey buddy, wanna buy some? Same thing goes here. If the legitimate channel won't put out, the black market will.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
On the one hand, the original software is being offered "free of charge," which means that one could assume that "damages" are $0.
On the other hand, the GPL is an interesting license in that it does not necessarily prevent the authors of software from simultaneously licensing under some other arrangement.
How about this for an entertaining scenario:
That price (heh, heh!) being $50,000 USD payable to each author for the source license, plus $5,000 USD payable to each author for deployment of each binary copy of the software.
Thus, if the gentle folk in New Delhi (having been there recently, it is really just the "newer" part of Delhi :-)), in not making arrangements, they would start by oweing $50,000, trebled to $150K, plus a not inconsiderable sum based on the number of copies of the software sold :-).
The "each author" part would need to be more clearly nailed down; it would mean that the company making the mistake of "pirating" the Linux kernel would owe payments to (at recent count of /usr/src/linux/CREDITS) 293 people, thus making the penalties owing not too distant from $1B, and giving those 293 people a tidy sum of money :-).
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
If that's the case, if someone can prove M$ uses GPL code in their products, anyone can legally copy it for free (regardless of what the EULA says). Of course if this is the case, the GPL will have a thorough test in the legal system.
science is a religion
Don't sue 'em....Slashdot 'em!
Do not confuse duty with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different.Duty is a debt you owe to yourself.
I am entirely for enforcement of the GPL. And I think that what this company did (if true) is reprehensible.
But what about the possibility that another course be taken which simply puts market pressure against the company instead of legal pressure? What I'm thinking is that the reason that this company had an oppurtunity is that the market was ready for everybuddy to run under winders but no one was doing it.
I've seen ports of a few GTK+ based programs, most notably nessus. Someone has ported GTK+ to winders, and that with cygwin apparently made the winders port of nessus quite easy. I would think it would also make a winders port of everybuddy equally easy because all of the basic stuff is there.
If that happened, then everybuddy running natively on winders would always be one step ahead of this theiving company's product. All the enhancements of an entire league of open source programs would be able to make everybuddy better and contain more features, and this company's product would always be trying to catch up with those features. Wouldn't it be better punishment to let the market ignore all their efforts? Or at the very least to make it so that whatever work they did is better spent by giving the work back to the open source project?
I don't have a clue about how easy it would be to port everybuddy to winders. But, doesn't this event necessitate it's being done? And if so, then would that fix the problem? And if so, is this a general course of action that could be taken to alleviate problems with GPL enforcement?
(Please remember before flaming and moderating me into oblivion that these are questions. If I knew the answers, I wouldn't have asked.)
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
It may be, for example, that the company (particularly if its Indian developers' grasp of English doesn't extend to legalese) doesn't properly understand the difference between GPLed code and public domain code. In the case that the company doesn't want to cooperate, the subsequent wrangling will go better if the FSF still has the "We'll go public with this" bargaining chip on their side.
...I'm going with "CowboyNeal" on this one.
-- From my Best Friend (Written to me over ICQ): "i was gonna go to a party...but i had to reinstall windows"
By definition the original GPL code is available in source. As was obvious from the inital post, one of the possible responses from the company (other than posting their own source or simply ignoring the complaint) was to simply remove any strings and, presumably, any magic numbers or integer "fingerprints".
I'm not saying this is the right or honorable way of using GPL code (I believe the exact opposite), but "hiding" an identifier in openly viewable source is not exactly a fool-proof method of protecting your source code.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
I can see now what would happen if we took the "CowboyNeal" route:
Slashdot_user: *crackle* Unit leader, we are surveying the suspect app.
Unit_leader: Roger that, keep me informed.
Slashdot_user (a few minutes later): Uh oh. We have confirmation; GPL violation at 9:00. Repeat, we have confirmed GPL access violation.
Unit_leader: Shit. I had hoped it wouldn't come to this. All right. Switch to plan Taco, that's tango alpha charlie omega.
Slashdot_user: Switching to plan Taco. Now deploying the trolls. God rest the souls of those poor bastards for ever thinking they could defy the GPL.
"And real life has warts and smelly feet" -- Paul Jaquays, id Software
If anyone is interested, ZDNet India still has a copy available at http://www.zdnetindia.com/swlib/messengerA2Z.exe.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
ZDNet India also has a story regarding all-in-one IMers.. and MessengerA2Z is listed.
:)
The download for the file is listed near the middle of the page (for the lazy people: click here
-------------------
arcane for life
I have a very serious concern that would explain why this company is being so helpful now. Is it possible that the reason the company is rushing to get us off their back is so that we do not look at there dozens of OTHER products? Look at their product list @ http://dsfinternet.com/dsf/products.html and you notice that all the products they sell, parallel pieces of open-source software available under the GPL writen by other people. I am willing to bet that if they steal one product, they have stolen others. Lets start checking out their services and making sure they are not 'a little too' much like our open source products. Also, this company should not be given a slap on the wrist, they should be made an example of.
Maybe it went something like this, and the company really was ignorant.
Company: Write us a messenging program, oh wise coder, and we shall grant thee a bag of cash.
Coder: Tis a daunting task, requiring many brain cells and a case of Penguin Mints. Fret not, Company, for thy will be done.
[Coder steals GPL code, changes some stuff, and waits. 1 week later, Coder returns looking bloodied and beat.]
Coder: Dear Company, twas a fearsome and gruelling campaign. I toiled night and day. Bedsores nave grown on by buttocks. But, fear not! For I present to thee....the Program! While your bag of cash is not nearly enough to cover my pain and suffering, I am a most generous and loyal Programmer and will accept it, nonetheless.
Company: Oh programmer, you are wise and god-like! You have invented glorious and unique code! We adore and fear you! Have two bags of money.
Or, maybe not...
If you consider that the normal practice for a software company is to make money by selling what they write, GPLing their code could put a large dent in their revenues. Even if they rewrite it from scratch, they have to pay their developers for the time it takes to do it. The main thing is not letting them get away with something like "ok, we'll fix it, but we'll keep selling this until we do"
It would be nice if the update on this article was displayed along with the headline instead of buried at the bottom of the article. Sounds to me like this company wasn't being slimy, just incompetent and/or unaware. Here's how I see what happened:
1. DSF is contacted by Zealous Open Source Rep.
2. DSF manager does initial ass-covering by stating, "Of course we don't use other peoples code!" He says this because that's probably what he believes and has been told.
3. Zealous Open Source Rep. sees plot to overthrow the Open Source movement and provides DSF Manager with evidence of his company's wrongdoing.
4. DSF Manager actually goes to the basement and asks DSF developper if this is true.
5. DSF Developper hems and haws and finally admits that he was lazy and used GPLed code for something that was supposed to be developped internally.
6. DSF Manager fires DSF Developper.
7. DSF Manager admits to world that the code was copied and takes down the code.
8. DSF Manager gets ass chewed out by DSF CEO for nearly getting the company into a legal mess.
Folks, 99% of these kind of violations are not due to intentional slimyness, just incompetence and lack of knowledge. No right minded company would even run the risk of getting sued over this kind of thing. Even one in India.
Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
The GPL is quite clear on this. They released binaries, and thus are legally bound to release the source to anyone who asks for it, up to (I believe) two years later. Simply pulling the binaries was never a legal option.
Just a clarification, as the Slashdot story indicated that would be an option.
I don't agree with everything you said but I wish I had moderator points to mod you up.
The obvious rebuttal, of course, is that the FSF is forced to play under laws which they don't believe should exist. They believe in all code being free, including theirs. The IP-enforcement part of the GPL exists only because they live in a world where the laws don't agree with their beliefs in software being fundamentally free.
That being said, I think it would be very interesting to see the GPL actually going to court. Is the GPL a legally enforcable agreement? If so, what kinds of damages can you claim on a product that you don't make any money off giving away? Is the GPL just an agreement which people honor "on their honor" to not look bad and because of their principles or is it more than that?
Mmmm.. Donuts
We should really test out the GPL in court. There is this new show where famous lawyers argue cases for people in front of a judge, it is called Power Of Attorney. I saw Geoffrey Fieger (Jack Kevorkian's attorney, Jenny Jones Murder Trial attorney) argue a case over $1000 dispute. I'm sure he would love to defend the GPL... :-)
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
And this kind of thing may be happenning all around the world, including USA, but the companies were more cautelous and ran a sed "s/GPLPROGRAM/NEWNAME/g" on the source code and usings other methods of obscuring the code. Just check the LinuxMagic VPN Firewall that is released but without any source code (and even binaries to download), you just have one option to get the (bin) files: buying it. What's the possibility of a organization that had access to all source code (the company that gives patent, maybe?) and compare with others software to check for any copyright infrigiments? I think that Microsoft is using GPL NTFS and SMB code! :)
gcc -o sig sig.c sig.c:4: #error NO SIG FOUND make: *** [sig] error 1
Maybe you could do this with a printout of your source code, or a floppy disk or CD-ROM for the same effect.
Regards,
-BK
Chemical Blog
Somehow I can't imagine a judge dropping a $1B fine on someone over this. Wouldn't you have to convince him (the judge) that this would be an equitable and just punishment? In any case, the last thing I'd want would be a fine imposed for GPL violation; I can just imagine some large software producer or another deciding that it's more cost effective to rip off GPL code and pay the fine than to code it themselves. Then where would we be?
It seems to me that the GPL imposes its own punishment on the offender: release the code to the entire project. An ambitious judge might require that the offending company also release unrelated code under the GPL as part of the punishment. Let the punishment fit the crime...
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
Yeah, what are they going to do if you give their software away for free? Say "Hey, we stole that code fair and square, now quit pirating us". Trying to use GPL'ed code for a proprietary application is just begging to have your app distributed for free. All other lawsuits and infringements aside it is the most effective punishment you can level on a company for abusing free code.
If you do, be sure to use a SneakEmail address to prevent spamming. *Jumps for Joy*
------------
CitizenC
Although the company has removed the 'messengerA2Z' client from thier web site, you can still get a copy here at ZDNet India, if anyone wants to check it out and see how it works (or download it now in case it goes away forever.)
Maybe GPL'd code needs something similar: not necessarily a backdoor but some easter egg that isn't easy to strip from the code but is sufficient enough that if someone did what this story talked about, it should be relatively easy to find a fingerprint of the source. "strings" works, but only if the GPL abuser forgets to check this, though I can think of several ways to hide snippets of strings in #define's throughout the code that look meaningly alone but can be incriminating when put together.
Mind you, it's not perfect, but this is where the GPL has a weakness -- without court order it's nearly impossible to prove that GPL code was used incorrectly. For all we know, Win2000 may be a wrapper around a linux kernel ( doubtful, of course), but the possibility is there.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
If I can sue those bastards for treble damage, imagine how much I can get for those kids next door with the lowrider and the boomer mcloud car stereo system of death!!!!
YMMV,
E.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
I think German web mail provider GMX(.de|.ch|.net|.li) had the GPL'd application acmemail running .. I can't prove it, but nearly the whole html code looked the same, and they didn't even translate the submission buttons e.g. ;)
Of course their source code isn't free or even open.
It's a pity that proving this is difficult. The community could get a really cool web mailer
The idea of the GPL is that nobody should run code that they don't have source code to. So if the NSA wants to rewrite Linux and only use it internally, they have the source code to their modifications, and it's find both legally and in the spirit of the GPL. But if they try to give it to the general public without source, then the public is being asked to run code for which they don't have the source, and that IS a GPL violation.
If you're genuinely curious about this, you might want to check out the various documents that the FSF has on their Web page, in particular the GNU Manifesto and the GPL itself.
My Web Page
Following a thread of a few days ago about the new ATA spec which allows people with copywriteable content to prevent it being copied, shouldn't the open source community lobby for the manufacturers of these disks to add to the spec a facility to allow data to be GPL'd (ie locked so that someone else can't subsequently lock it).
And you should use GNUS, the Free mail/newsreader that comes with EMACS. :-)
My Web Page
How do you prove they agreed to your license in the first place ?
Do you have a signature or something.
It comes down to the same problem with then enforcability of shrink wrap licenses.
IMHO IANAL (Put acronyms here) but you can only sue them for copyright infringment, not for a license violation or something.
The Free Software Foundation has a very respected attorney for dealing with violations of the GPL but it can only enforce the GPL if the copyright is held by the Free Software Foundation.
The authors of Everybuddy are very fortunate in this case that the infringers cooperated. What if they hadn't? What would you do? Sue in an Indian court?
Please see what to do if you think you see a violation of the GPL, LGPL, or GFDL and note what they say:
It may do no good to turn the copyright over to the FSF after releasing your code, if an earlier version of your code will serve the infringer's needs - they'll be infringing on your earlier license, not the FSF's later one that they didn't use. That's why you should attend to this right away.To make the Free Software Foundation the copyright holder of your package, please see the FSF's info on legal matters and how to apply the GPL license terms to your new programs.
I don't see it in the FSF's pages, but I read that when those folks cracked that censorware program and released it under GPL, that they thought they were off the hook after they settled with Mattel because the code was copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, so it wasn't their code to withdraw from circulation. But the problem was that they had not sent the FSF a legal written document transferring the copyright. I read in "Legal Care for Your Software" that copyright can only be transferred in writing, I think it may be insufficient to simply state the copyright holder in the source files if it is someone other than yourself.
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
In many cases you could change the text to say "Copyright (c) 2000 Free Software Foundation. This program is free software; yadda yadda".
If you're program is a GUI program, it may not be too hard to obscure the generation of this text and show it in a message box.
One thing I suggest though is that if you do this, you split up the code that does it and distribute it all over your program, and include several independent ways it can be done with independent implementations.
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Thats a more compelling reason for these companies to give their changes back to the developers.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
yeah you definately sound 15
.oO0Oo.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
OK, so lets say DSF didn't cooperate with the Everybuddy people what exactly would they sue them for? See there ARE a couple of limitations on copyright lawsuits. If you sue someone for violating your license agreement you have to prove that by reproducing your copyrighted work the culprit was going to put your company out of business and rape your girlfriends. In the case of GPL projects, you can't really lose money as you're usually not even acknbowledged as an organization by the IRS. By letting your copyleft be handled by the FSF you can take legal action. How come? The FSF (IIRC) is filed as a non-profit and by violating their licensing agreements you're essencially commiting fraud. You're undermining their source of revenue (donations) by using their intelectual property in a competitive manner.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
We weren't really looking for this, we were notified by a competing company of DSF Internet that they were doing this. We looked in to it and found out that it was true, so we started talking to DSF, GNU, and Michael from slashdot. We wanted to wait until we had some closure, or a refusal to comply with the GPL before we posted this on slashdot. DSF was very responsive and they did the right thing by GPL'ing their messenger.
I am glad that things turned out the way they did, but all the points Michael makes are good ones. If DSF had refused to do the right thing, I don't know where this would have gone. We need to answer the question of 'what to do if this happens and the Bad Guys don't turn around and do the Right Thing?'
Thanks to everyone who helped us get this worked out, hopefully it will lead to a win32 version of everybuddy a lot sooner than we had planned before.
Perhaps some of the companies who peddle open source or those who have a financial stake in them (Red Hat, Hanover, etc) could all chip into a common fund that would take care of legal representation.
Relalistically, a monetary award probably wouldn't be neccessary or applicable for this situation (as others have said, this is a free product). Perhaps simply suing to have the offensive parties abide by the license (or pay for the legal fees maybe) would suffice.
If I could think of something pithy to say, I'd put it here. No really.
Also, do a search for Jabber on sourceforge.
There are actually about 30 projects related to jabber, 20 of which are clients for several different platforms. (linux, windows, mac, palm, etc etc etc) jabber.org is a home-base type site for people working on the server code, the protocol, or the "transports" (server modules that allow you to talk to other instant messaging services.)
jabber-central.com is dedicated to people working on clients. The site also maintains a list of jabber servers you can connect to.
A new version of the server should be released later this month (well, as a client developer, i've got my fingers crossed, anyway.) The current version of the server doesn't work with all the transports, but hopefully that will fixed with the new release.
Jabber differs significantly from Everybuddy, et al. It defines/uses its own protocol, and it's up to the server to translate your message to AIM/ICQ/Yahoo readable form, not the client, as is the case with Everybuddy.
Also, Jabber uses XML based message packets, so it's relatively easy to make your own application that uses the protocol...you'd just have to write a client that understands your special xml tags.
Anyway, Jabber's a really neat project. Have a look. Yeah.
yer pal, captain suzanne
"PC LOAD LETTER??!? WHAT THE F--- DOES THAT MEAN?" ..michael bolton
The reason for treble damages is many fold. The obvious reason is to punish the offender for willfully ignoring the law. But the secondary reason is to offset the court cost of simple people sueing for something they rightfully deserved to get. I.e. if it cost a single copyright holder $25,000 to being suit for a GPL violation, several could throw $5,000 in a hat and start a suit, seeing who joined in. The cost would be minimal if a lot joined in (class action suit) compared to a bunch of single suits. But, if you were the only person on a GPL project attempting to sue someone for a violation who could just put food on the table month to month, and you're lawyer takes it on contingency plus costs, you might get into and out of mediation for $10,000 to 50,000 if it was an open and shut case, local/international, etc... found by the judge/panel et. al. with prejudice, then maybe you need treble damages. Heck, you still may not collect them on review, and then you would lose money. Almost every opinion I've read on treble damages, even from judges that didn't favor the reason for the law that imposed it (labor's a greate subject area for that kind of logic)... where was I? oh yeah Nearly every one of them supported the treble damages in cases where the violator was flagrant in it's abuse of the law. IANAL, just read a lot that gunk.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
Tne US government isn't technically allowed to make criminal laws -- that's reserved to the states. The national government is, however, allowed to impose taxes. (another example: when lynchings were treated with a blind eye by the states, (or in the case of the Rodney King beating), the federal charge is violation of civil rights, not murder. It's also why drug sales were originally handled by the Treasury Department.
_________
In any case, I expect that a copyright suit is going to have to be launched at some point, against someone. In this case, I think that the suit could have been launched in the states (against the US sales of the product).
It's also possible (IANAL) that the 'actual damages' could be based on the price charged by the person selling the offending product.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
um...
LGPL can be used in proprietary software.
So no. You are wrong. Just the EveryBuddy programmers should be ticked off.
These guys need to do two things to make this right (TM).
They need to immediately release it in compliance with the GPL, and they need to review all their internal code (possible allowing a single outside authority to examine it) to assure us they have not violated the GPL in any of their other software.
If every package they off is just repackaged GPL code, and they have charged money, they owe all of that minus maybe tech support costs to the original author's, along with an apology.
Stealing GPL code and not releasing it is like selfishly stealing a valuable resource held in the public trust for yourself, and denying it to others. Everyone who is interested in the software this company sells owes it to themselves and this company to email them and request they prove they are complying with the GPL in ALL their software modules, or refuse to do business with them.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
Also, it might be worth noting that only the copyright holder can enforce the GPL. So, we try to help when we can (and that address is the best way to request help), but our hands are tied if the copyright holder doesn't want to take action.
Boy am I getting tired of slashdotters who give out misinformation. Often it comes with profanity or insults. Check out this site, or anything in the relevant DMOZ category. In the U.S., you do automatically own the copyright on everything you write, but registration strengthens your legal options against pirates.
Find free books.
Wasn't this how gcc aquired its initial objective-c and c++ front-ents?: Companies taking the code, modifying it, and releasing it in binary-only form.
In India, it's common practice to send "eunuchs" to recover debts. (Their equivelant of the eunuch covers a broad spectrum of people, from castrated men to transgendered folk to gay folk to people who associate themselves with the above groups) The eunuchs will frequent themselves around a business until they are paid the debt (or something is arranged.)
I'm sure we could have arranged for them to hang out around the programmers HQ until they release the source code...
LGPL can be used in proprietary software.
Wrong!
LGPL libraries can be dynamically linked with proprietary software. So unless these other libraries were distributed as dll's, they violate the licenses of any LGPL'd libraries.
Not to mention many libraries are GPL'd anyway.
--
As the author of a free book, worries about this kind of abuse are one of the most common reactions I get when I talk to people who aren't familiar with free information. The crucial point is that the internet is the perfect tool for publicizing free information projects and giving people a place to check whether the thing they're paying for might really be available for free. In the case of books, people should know to check the IPL, On-Line Books Page, Andamooka, and the site immodestly listed in my sig. I'm not as familiar with the equivalents for software, but I imagine SourceForge would be a good starting point.
Find free books.
This is really interesting, because I tried out messenger a2z just recently on my quest for a nice win32 cross-vender instant messenger. I read a soft core article about jabber and messengera2z. I installed ma2z to see what it was like, it sounded nice on paper. It didn't work well however, and seemed to be an incomplete program, not allowing very good integration into major AIM / ICQ / MSN networks. Then I took a look at the process manager in win2000, and was taken aback... 20 megs memory usage. I've never seen a program use that much, and I was suddenly very suspicious.
I visited they're webpage, and realized that this messenger was nothing more than another app for them to offer as a part of their whole "portal" centered business. They offer a bunch of vanilla pp's to brand with your logo. This seems kinda shady... I don't want to use an app that's only purpose is so the company has something free to hand out, like party favors or cheap watches.
But it also concerns me. Companies that offer free services usually gain revenue from more obscure sources, like agregate information about consumers. I'm just curious as to what this program is... badly done ripped off port that they were too lazy (and thought they wouldn't get caught), or some insidious market scheme (like all that memory usage and stuff going towards doing something shady while you work). They've shown some of either their character or their incompetence. Either way, this is definately some company I'm cautious of.
Did anyone doing the disassembling see anything curious about memory usage or if there's anything shady in their program? Just curious.
This download is only any good if you set your clock back to before 29th November 2000. After that date, it can't be installed.
I never asked for a everybuddy client on windoze because Linux is a superior workstation OS.
But when I am gaming on my 9x machine, it would be nice to chit chat with the rest of my homies on Yahoo!, ICQ and AIM.
I was happy to see that people took Everybuddy (the most superior chat client) and port it over to Windows but sad to see that DSF did not open the source.
With this news of DSF getting their heads out of their asses, all is right.
ChozSun
ChozSun.com
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
"As a programmer, the value of having the source code for all the software that is available under GPL to learn from is invaluable. "
Great, so once you improve your skills what are you going to do ?
Write more GPL code or work for somebody else writing commercial code ?
Competition is what GPL is against.
What would I want to invest tons of money in making sure that my product is superior to anything competition might create when as soon as I release it they will be able to incorporate all my hard work into their code at no cost?
So what if I can do the same ? If they don't have any meaningful features I can take it is me who lost because my product now is no different than anything else on the market, despite the fact that it was me who innovated here.
Funny, according to our lawyers the LGPL/GPL allow us to link to the libraries in a "normal" fashion without either giving credit or providing source.
Since when does using a precompiled library make you responsible for distributing it and publishing source?
Were now talking about ethics here folks!
This makes me think. If you did this over in India, whats to say your not doing it here in the US? And how many other Hi-B's from India are/may be doing this here?
This would really make me question the ethics of a programmer comming from India. Especially a hiring manager should worry about this.
This type of thing is why I feel source should be open! With closed source you could steal anyones code you wanted and say it is yours. If I use a routine from someones code I at least have comments in the code as to who owns the code I borrowed - as long as the person states in their code that their code is freely usable.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
I just read on the DSF site that "MessengerA2Z is an advanced instant messaging service that comes free to you. Its superior functioning is based on the initial source code made available under GNU GPL license, which brings together the expertise and knowledge of developers world-wide."
They also say that the source will be available shortly. I must say that this is a great publicity thing for DSF because I never would have even known about them until they did this.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Title 17, United States Code, provides statutory damages of $200 to $100,000 or more for copyright infringement, even when there are no actual damages.
Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Since when does using a precompiled library make you responsible for distributing it and publishing source?
Since the libraries do not become preinstalled on Windows systems. Since the user (who most likely just escaped from the zoo that is AOL) doesn't know how to download the libraries from OSDN SourceForge and install them. Therefore, you must include the libraries in your distribution, and because you are distributing binaries, you must also distribute the source for the cost of media, shipping, and handling.
Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo.
Will I retire or break 10K?
A copyright license is a form of contract. One who modifies or distributes GPL licensed code agrees to the terms of the contract.
Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo.
Will I retire or break 10K?
WAHHH!!!!
It's a commonly held fallacy, especially in the South (where I live) that the southern accent implies lesser intelligence. While I don't believe that about accents tell you anything about the person, I like the implication that calling it winders means it's dumber... which it is.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
If you're more worried about hiring Indian programmers now because of this incident, you are either ignorant or racist, or both. Many of the biggest proponents of open source software are in India, and many of the local and national governments in the country are pushing open source solutions for various nationalized industries, health care, etc. Look at coverage on http://freeos.com
The ethics problems exist everyone, and should certainly spring up in a country with four times the US population. No, I think you should start worrying about hiring about anyone, beginning with US citizens. Considering the ethics of most multinational and transnational corporations whose capital generally flows to the U.S., if you want to talk ethics you should be worried about them.
Just to throw a monkey-wrench into things...
We don't actually know that the terms of the GPL apply. This may be a copyright violation instead of a GPL violation, and the nasty thing is that there is no way for anyone on the outside to be able to tell the difference.
GPL is similar to click-through EULAs, in the sense that there is never any proof that the person who received the GPLed code has actually agreed to the license. It's a contract that no one ever really signs; it's just assumed to have happened. The difference between a typical EULA and GPL is that GPL grants additional rights (the right to redistribute) that the user would not otherwise have under copyright law. So when the user exercises those rights, it implies that they must have agreed to GPL, since the alternative is that they are committing a copyright violation.
But it's just an implication, and it's based on the assumption that violating IP is worse (and subjects the violator to more liability) than violating a contract. An interesting idea is that there may be countries where the laws are different, and IP violations are more tolerated than contract violations. In such a country, it may be in violator's interest to declare that they did not accept the GPL, and are therefore violating copyright instead of license.
Just something to think about, if there aren't enough cans of worms in your life.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I didn't know it was demeaning to state the obvious, thanks for the lesson.
.oO0Oo.
I didn't doubt his intelligence. The comment is tinged with 15yo ness that's all.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Since when does using a precompiled library make you responsible for distributing it and publishing source?
RTFL. It specifically states that 'Linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.'
Since the library is combined with your executable either at run-time or compile-time, it is legally a derivative work, and subject to the terms of the license of the library.
Funny, according to our lawyers the LGPL/GPL allow us to link to the libraries in a "normal" fashion without either giving credit or providing source.
RTFL, I'm not going to do your work for you.
--
Like: Copyright (C) 2001 Name 1 & Name 2
I'm currently doing this and I wonder if it's legal ;-).
Monkey sense
I still don't see why you would consider my post over-rated. There are ways around clock settings, and some folks might generally be interested in seeing the app and how it compares to Everybuddy.
Whatever.
It is rather simple - fines and such shouldn't even be discussed.
As they have not complied with the GPL, they are distributing stolen software, which is criminally prosecutable in all countries which have accepted the Berne convention.
Big companies will end the case with an 'agreement' and a lot of money, but with GPL an ultimatum would work - either they release the code under GPL, or they can face a criminal lawsuit - and as such, it would be enforced by their country, and wouldn't require lawyers from the developers.
I may disagree with your opinion, but I will defend to death your right to speak it.