Slashdot Mirror
Tracking GPL Violators
An anonymous reader writes "Earlier this week, open source developer Harald Welte made headlines when he personally served warning letters to 13 technology companies for alleged GPL violations. Now in a ZDNet interview, Welte explains the challenges behind tracking down these violators and how he persuades them to comply."
There is a lot of violation of Open Source stuff. A lot of violation is being found on MorphOS where a lot of Open Source stuff is being used.
ixemul, libnix, gcc, binutils and other things and when asking for the source codes then you get a reply telling you that the sources got lost. But still the stuff is being worked on and put in the binary release of their OS.
The Taïwanese company X-Micro responded to the letter, and said they didn't know about the GPL licence restrictions... Wow, they can make hardware, but they can't read a licence agreement.
So, if you use the public domain, how do you prevent people from abusing your work? By naming them when they take work without credit, by avoiding them and refusing to cooperate with them in any way, by expressing respect for people who share work freely and who give proper credit, and by gently trying to convince others to do so.
Many companies which ignore the GPL don't understand the benefits open sharing of their code contributions would give them. It's important for us to communicate better how an open source development model helps everyone (an open code contribution may inspire others to contribute more, to fix bugs, and so on; it is much easier to maintain over version upgrades when it's in the main tree). The problem with the GPL is that it's not a tool of communication. We have focused too much on forcing people to do the right thing, instead of convincing them of the benefits of our approach.
We also need a generally accepted registry for public domain works so that it is provable who the first creator of a work is (that's also necessary as a defense to make sure other people don't claim copyright and sue people for using a work that's in the public domain).
I do value the copyleft effect of the GPL. I think its significance is overestimated, but it does have value. In spite of the arguments above, I think it is of enormous importance that we avoid a split between the copyleft and the non-copyleft camps. In the larger scheme of things, these differences of opinion are minor, and what is important is that we all support the goal of free content. So while I don't approve of the means in this case (GPL enforcement), I do approve of the end (more free content). Still, I ask you to consider putting your code in the public domain.
It's all a matter of mindset, and you're not listening
He is basically arguing that some things fundamentally belong to everyone/no-one, and that no-one has any rights to them. There are countless of examples of this I'm sure you'd agree to; the air being most prevailant of these I'd guess.
Wether or not you think music / intellectual property / business method-patents / patents on mathematical methods can be lumped into this category is up to you, but if you're going to argue against him, referring to the rights of the copyright-holder isn't cutting it, as he(and a lot of others) ain't recognising those rights to begin with.
Property is by nature theft, albeit also, sadly enough, a necessity. Applying it to "intellectual property" (limiting other people's right to intellect) isn't, atleast in my world, a necessity at all.
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
All property is a compromise. The reason we don't live in a socialist paradise (which we used to, a hundred thousand years ago before agriculture and the concept of 'property') is because without ownership, common assets lack stewardship and can be degraged. The tragedy of the commons...
Defining an asset as "property" is a compromise for those cases where it is less evil than the alternatives.
There is no other moral justification for claiming ownership of something. No natural law that says "this land, these animals, these trees are mine to use, eat, burn".
Now, please explain how defining a song or program as "property" is less evil than the alternatives? Artists don't create when they can't sell records? Untrue. Programmers won't work except for money? Laughable.
The truth is that you can hardly prevent people from being creative and generous with their works. It takes large and oppressive regimes to get artists to sign up with the RIAA and equivalents, to get movie makers to work within "the studio system", to get programmers to accept that money is more important than dissemination of their ideas and works.
Copyright is a compromise that - like patents - must provide demonstrable value to the entire community, not just the law makers and their friends - or must be questioned and reviewed.
Personally I'm a prolific writer and programmer and I do think that I have the right to do what I want with my work, but within reason. If I can't maintain my source code, improve and invest in it, I should lose the rights to it.
Property rights should, morally, be tied to stewardship. Take care of something, and we the people grant you the right to "own" it.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Same thing, different medium.
I'm slowly converting all of what I refer to as '3d graphic stuff' to public domain. (Not that that is important at all)
I do it because it generates a bigger income - well, bigger than any other method of access control. Some will rip apart each graphic for their own use, but the people who want custom work will pay to get it done. If it was easy, everyone would do it I guess.
This is not meant to be an advertising slot for my own wares, just a curious change of mind that had a net financial gain. (That's my intention anyway)
Also I hope one of the companies was sveasoft. If you dont know about them they took the wrt54g firmware and modified it and made people pay 20$ for it.
As I understand it, a lot of DNS resolvers are based on BIND code. Note that the link is only the products that openly admit to being based on BIND -- it's anyone's guess as to how many others there are.
RTFGPL.
They only have to provide source to those that that they distribute binaries to. They don't distribute binaries of current versions to non-subscribers.
If you are a subscriber (FFS it's only $20!) you can download the source and do what you like with it.
"Property is by nature theft
How can something that you just synthesized - produced where it didn't exist before - be theft? You must mean that producing something, and then not giving it to someone for free is what you consider theft"
Please deal with facts.
Please note, I am not agreeing with the proposition "Property is by nature theft," just to your response to the proposition. I am not willing at this point to buy into the "intellectual property" meme.
Here is how it used to be...
Create a new work (one able to be copyrighted today) that is a product of your intellect. It is yours, you can keep it for yourself and it will remain yours or you can choose to publish it (make it known to the public) in which case the public can now also use it. Same with things you invent (ones that can now be patented.)
The world was like this for a long time and yet the things you created were still yours and under your control until you chose to reveal t hem to the public.
Enter copyright and patent laws. Governments change the way the world works and TAKE a right away from the public and GIVE it to you.
There was supposedly a bargain and a balance struck. Taking away the rights of the public and giving them to authors supposedly ends up benefitting the public as more works will be created and revealed. All well and good.
Funny thing is though, the bargain has been getting steadily worse for the public and from what I hear, the big monied interests are making things worse for the majority of the creators as well.
all the best,
drew
( zotz )