Maui X-Stream at it Again?

Goyuix writes "In their latest commercial venture, Maui X-Stream, the now infamous company behind Cherry OS, has recently launched a suite of tools that once again takes advantage of GPL'd code to get their dirty work done... This time it is a set of video encoding, streaming and display tools. A choice quote from SourceForge: 'There are boundled dshow filters, string, toolbars, dialogs, command line switches, etc..., which can be verified easily by just running the applications and taking a look, or a bit harder by analysing the memory dump'. Is the situation getting worse or is community just getting better at finding the violators?"

Comments

Not Better, Just Smarter

[gbulmash]

Is the situation getting worse or is community just getting better at finding the violators?

I don't think it's the community getting better, at least not in this case. If you have a crook who is known to steal televisions and then put them in his front yard, disguised as birdbaths, you're going to get suspicious every time a new birdbath appears in his yard.

Maui X-Stream is that crook and this video project is their latest birdbath.

- Greg

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

On the smart side, he's gotten >100,000 people to look at his birdbath multiple times, where there hasn't been a single story on Slackware / debian / enlightenment / Nethack / etc on the Slashdot front page in weeks.

Possible he's running Google ads somewhere nearby?

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP ./ is becoming astroturfed more and more.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Wiser87]

I thought the violations in their video products had been known for a while? IIRC, there was a discussion about it in the PearPC forums. Interestingly enough, one of the people who looked into it said that if it weren't for the fact that it was in violation of the GPL, their products would actually be pretty good.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Aruthra]

Of course, if it's the GPL'ed code that makes it good, that statement is rather meaningless.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Anonymous Coward]

That is possibly the oddest analogy i've ever read. Where can I read more about these "birdbaths" ?

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget about Maui X-Stream, I want to hear more about this TV stealing birdbath maker!

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[kz45]

I don't think it's the community getting better, at least not in this case. If you have a crook who is known to steal televisions and then put them in his front yard, disguised as birdbaths, you're going to get suspicious every time a new birdbath appears in his yard.

well, GPL violations are not equal to stealing. The original sourcecode is still there. Maybe a copyright violation of some kind, so your analogy doesn't hold.

I don't understand why the community has a problem with this in the first place. The original source code is still under the GNU license.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a copyright violation. They're violating the GPL. And it's a big deal because if the authors had wanted any business to take their code, modify it, and release a binary only product with it they would have originally used the BSD license.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[gbulmash]

Forget about Maui X-Stream, I want to hear more about this TV stealing birdbath maker!

His name is Eddie and I believe he'll be appearing in the Christmas episode of "Reno 911" ;-)

- Greg

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[mrdaveb]

I don't understand why the community has a problem with this in the first place. The original source code is still under the GNU license.

People who release code under the GPL are perfectly entitled to 'have a problem' with people breaching their software licence of choice.
Anyone who thinks it's OK for others to take their programs, close the source and release modified versions shouldn't be using the GPL - try the BSD licence instead.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[kz45]

People who release code under the GPL are perfectly entitled to 'have a problem' with people breaching their software licence of choice.
Anyone who thinks it's OK for others to take their programs, close the source and release modified versions shouldn't be using the GPL - try the BSD licence [opensource.org] instead.

my above post wasn't meant to be funny, but what the hell, I'll take the karma points.

another point to consider: if people want to get proprietary software (or music for that matter) without paying for it (if it's against the license). They should consider using something else.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Dolda2000]

another point to consider: if people want to get proprietary software (or music for that matter) without paying for it (if it's against the license). They should consider using something else.

Of course it's not right to get proprietary software/music/movies without paying for it. However, that doesn't mean that it's the same thing as taking GPL'd software and closing it.

Taking proprietary IP and opening it up is harmful for few (the copyright holder(s)) and useful for many (the general public), while taking free IP and closing it is harmful for many (the general public and the copyright holder(s)) and useful for few (only the ones who close it). The GPL is designed to prevent that from happening.

Like I said, that doesn't mean that it's right to open up proprietary software. Nevertheless, one shan't say that there's no difference.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Directrix1]

Open source implementations which are compatible with formats used by proprietary vendors are not proprietary software. Additionally, we would be nowhere without reverse engineering and the open sharing of knowledge. And that "we" includes proprietary software companies like Microsoft.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Anonymous Coward]

Real hackers create their own birdbaths with a remote control!

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Anonymous Coward]

Interoperation is specifically permitted in copyright laws, which is most of why big software companies love patents so much.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[sjames]

I don't understand why the community has a problem with this in the first place. The original source code is still under the GNU license.

The same reason plagerism is one of the more serious offenses you can commit in the acedemic world for a start.

There's also the extra offensive nature that having been offered a very generous license for your hard work, these jackasses STILL choose to misapropriate it.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 11 kinds of people in this world: nerds, fake nerds who belittle others but know nothing, and normals.

So since you are belittling the middle group by claiming they know nothing, you must be a member of that group?

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Taking proprietary IP and opening it up is harmful for few (the copyright holder(s)) and useful for many (the general public), while taking free IP and closing it is harmful for many (the general public and the copyright holder(s)) and useful for few (only the ones who close it). The GPL is designed to prevent that from happening.

I fail to see the anology. Unless the original GPL project ceases to exist, I don't see the harm being that great. I do believe the selling GPL'ed code as close source original works is an offense punishable by a good tar and feathering.

Violating a license.. is violating a license. Music or Software the offense is the same. Only in the case of GPL, we can't pretend that the victims are faceless and greedy corporatations...

Wow.. Someone always brings up MP3s..

Brgds,
Bill

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[willCode4Beer.com]

I'm confused.
This seems more like they *stole* a TV from a pile of TV's that had a sign reading "Free TV's" in front.

As for the GPL violations, I can't really make a comment because the vagaries of licenses are not my expertise.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Bill_the_Engineer]

*corporations... Need to spell check more often ;)

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Dolda2000]

So you never noticed "anology"? ;-)

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Daytona955i]

Because I take your code, something you worked really hard on to get working and all I do is make a nice little GUI for it, something you've been meaning to do for a while but have been busy with other things and haven't gotten around to it. I then claim the entire work as my own and sell it without giving you anything at all, not even my source code modifications.

It is stealing, I'm taking your work and claiming it as my own.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[masukomi]

BSD doesn't allow you to close the source, just to distrubute it with closed source as long as the BSD code still has source available.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Crap.. It's too early in the morning.. ;)

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[kz45]

Wow.. Someone always brings up MP3s..

I only mentioned it because of the hypocritical nature of the slashdot community. Violating GPL = bad and violating violating software/music copyright = good (software and music need to be free, corporations need to get their money taken away, and the RIAA needs to release better music (so by taking all their original music for free, a point is definitely made that it sucks)

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Raptor CK]

The analogy holds, as it's referring to the nature of the crook, not the violation itself. I think we're all aware that it's not stealing, though it *is* a copyright violation. Different laws, different issues, but in the end, a crook following a pattern, be it in violation of criminal or civil law, is going to raise a flag when the pattern reasserts itself.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD sure as hell does allow you to close the source. But it what it doesn't do is allow you to claim you wrote it.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[kz45]

The analogy holds, as it's referring to the nature of the crook, not the violation itself. I think we're all aware that it's not stealing, though it *is* a copyright violation. Different laws, different issues, but in the end, a crook following a pattern, be it in violation of criminal or civil law, is going to raise a flag when the pattern reasserts itself.

that same analogy would also hold with music and software being shared on a P2P network as well.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[fireman sam]

Actually downloading music is different to what Maui X-Stream is doing.

The equivilant would be if I downloaded the latest Britney Spears album, printed new covers and labels and then attempted to sell it as my own works.

Nobody who downloads songs on P2P is claiming they now own the copyright to the piece of music and are attempting to sell it as their own work.

Maui X-Stream have downloaded PearPC, printed new covers and labels and were attempting to sell it as their own work. Exactly what they are doing now.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[kz45]

Actually downloading music is different to what Maui X-Stream is doing.

The equivilant would be if I downloaded the latest Britney Spears album, printed new covers and labels and then attempted to sell it as my own works.

Nobody who downloads songs on P2P is claiming they now own the copyright to the piece of music and are attempting to sell it as their own work.

Maui X-Stream have downloaded PearPC, printed new covers and labels and were attempting to sell it as their own work. Exactly what they are doing now.

it's the same, because they are both violations of their respected licenses.

maui X-stream is violating the GNU license because they are using licensed code without releasing the source. (I suspect that if Microsoft released a new tool, which was free,closed-source, and used GPLd code, the EFF would be going after them just like maui-X).

P2p users are violating the license of the person or company that released the song or album they are sharing with the world.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[91degrees]

In what way? If someone had been caught trading music files before, and then was found to have a suspicious number of new music files on his hard disk, then yes, I guess it would lead people to be suspicious. But I can't really see that happening.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[cyclop]

This is not hypocritical. This is logical at all.

As Stallmann himself stated, in a world without IP laws (at least, without the kind of IP laws we experience), there would be no need for the GPL. The GPL somehow "hijacks" the current IP copyright model to achieve the exact opposite of copyright - that is, copyleft. We must defend copyright on the GPL not because we like copyright, but because we fight it in the end.

As someone stated above, violations of proprietary SW/music/books copyright is an advantage for many and (perhaps) a loss for a few. Violations of GPL are an advantage for a few and a loss for many. There definitively IS a difference for the community.

Re:Not Better, Just Smarter

[cduffy]

First off -- license violation isn't illegal. Copyright violation is; license compliance is a defense to copyright violation charges.

That said -- there's a substantial difference (well, not so substantial as it used to be) between copyright violation for commercial use versus copyright violation where the violater doesn't gain from their actions (including gaining access to other pirated works) -- and even if there weren't a legal difference, the former is certainly much more ethically reprehensible.

"Copyright violation is copyright violation" is like saying "theft is theft" -- but someone who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family is much less morally reprehensible than someone who steals an inventor's prototype to sell it as his own.

boundled?

[Anonymous Coward]

boundled?

Re:boundled?

[arbitraryaardvark]

Google returns 1000+ hits for boundled. Typo or neologism?

Re:boundled?

[3nd32]

Typo: bundled (or so I'm guessing).

Re:boundled?

[Concerned Onlooker]

Come on, don't play dumb. You knew they meant "bungled."

Getting worse?

[Drakonian]

It's hard to say it's getting worse since it's only one company that keeps blatantly offending.

Re:Getting worse?

[frankthechicken]

And it's one company that is bringing to the attention of a fair few people some fairly decent software that they might not otherwise heard of.

I think next time I want to get some of my software known about, I might just give Maui X-Stream a call, they seem to have some fairly good contacts in the tech media world.

Re:Getting worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Drakonian, meet Slashbot alarmism. Slashbot alarmism, Drakonian.

Re:Getting worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hardly just one company. The linux kernel, busybox and iptables seem to be popular among manufacturers of SOHO network devices. Sadly the GPL is not as popular.

The various open source media player programs also attract gadget developers who don't care enough about licensing.

Last but not least there is a trend to attempt legal and technical trickery to circumvent the GPL requirements. Companies which are completely aware of the license requirements are nevertheless building business models around open source and either try to make the GPL benefits too expensive for interested people or try to delay source releases indefinitely by continuously making small source management "mistakes".

Re:Getting worse?

[NoMaster]

"+5 Insightful"? More like "-5, Unsightful"!

How soon we forget Linksys, Belkin, et al. In fact, do a google search for <insert commodity hardware manufacturer> +"GPL violation" and see many come up...

Re:Getting worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's hardly just one company. The linux kernel, busybox and iptables seem to be popular among manufacturers of SOHO network devices. Sadly the GPL is not as popular."

SOHO = Linksys im assuming, and except for the part where they openly admit that its linux/iptables/busybox and fully offer everything for download on their site, youre dead on. big difference from using GPLd code and saying you wrote it... BIG difference.

Re:Getting worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not Linksys - they after all offered the code+development tools needed to build their stuff once the violation was pointed out.

Dell didn't with their Truemobile - and the company which made the truemobile boards OEM for lots of other manufacturers also.

Re:Getting worse?

[guruevi]

Not to mention the not-as-known company-specific software. Our company just installed a new voip telephone system that costs them about 15000 euro for 25 people for the software, installation of the software (not the server hardware) and some USB audio headsets disguised as telephones (without keypad). Guess what: it is based on Asterisk (very disguised, running on Windows) while Asterisk-consultants were also considered and they had an offer for about 10000 euro including full Cisco VOIP phones and the server hardware. The only thing was that the server was based on Linux and Microsoft doesn't like it.

Re:Getting worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

REAL Asterisk would have been better with the cisco phones. Who cares if MS gets pissy if you dont use their software. ITS A PHONE SYSTEM, when MS gives you reliable telecomnications software, then they can bitch. till then tough shit.

Worse

[breakbeatninja]

I think the situation is definitely getting worse AND the open source community is becoming more adament about exposing this sort of behavior. The problem is that all open source licensing relies on honesty and many commercial vendors don't know the meaning of it, so when the two sides clash, open source may get the short end of the stick.

Re:Worse

[Fulg]

[...] open source may get the short end of the stick.

As one of my co-worker says all the time he hears this, "I'd rather get the short end of the stick, because you smash with the big end."

Re:Worse

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying we need some kind of GNU Brute Squad (GNUBS)?? Sounds good, count me in! I've been looking for a piece of them for years.

Maybe I'll go start a sourceforge page for that.

Re:Worse

[magadass]

This is why people keep source code closed...Would you leave your wallet laying out in an airport? Thats basically what your doing, people know its illegal to take it yet they still do..wow what a suprise...Gee I thought the whole world was honest and truthful...Whatever!

If you have something innovative keep it closed source, dont be stupid and get your ass ganked...

Re:Worse

[arose]

You mean GNU Brute International Elite Squad?

Re:Worse

[Zenmonkeycat]

The problem is that many businesses see OSS advocates as "Dirty Pinko Commies" who just want to make everything free while they smoke their drugs and have promiscuous sexual relations. These "communists" don't believe in personal property, and aren't apt to be consumers in a capitalist society. Therefore, capitalists can abuse them and steal from them, and they can't do anything but whine and complain to Comrade Khrushchev.

I realize that sounds silly, considering the fall of the Berlin Wall and Gorbachev's early retirement, but the whole "gotta fight the commies" mentality really hasn't died in the US. There's still that vast chimera of Global Communism, and for some, the best way to fight it is to steal from the communists and make money selling things.

Once we can disabuse these klepto-capitalists of their skewed ideas of OSS advocates, and prove to them that we actually have the money and initiative to litigate the pants off of them, they'll shut up and stop stealing from us.

Personally, I'm apt to blame the whole thing on Spiro Agnew. But that's just me.

Re:Worse

[NineNine]

The problem is that all open source licensing relies on honesty

Wait until Asia gets heavy into development. Right now, there's an entire culture that doesn't even care about pirating commercial, copyrighted software. They won't even blink when they start including and selling GPL'ed code.

Re:Worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless someone uses the GPL for what it is FOR. Helping enforce your rights as a copyright holder.

Did you contribute to those projects? Do you object to these people using your code? Well guess what unless they comply by the rules you set forward...

And copyright violations under US law hold some stiff penelties.

The same laws that xIAA is using you can to...

How about this for a different take? I belive they are circumventing copyright controls put in place...

Re:Worse

[shaitand]

"If you have something innovative keep it closed source"

The only thing closed about closed source is the license. Anyone can decompile the binary back to a human readable form.

Re:Worse

[operagost]

The problem is that many businesses see OSS advocates as "Dirty Pinko Commies" who just want to make everything free while they smoke their drugs and have promiscuous sexual relations.

Well, they're half right.

I may be a bit late to the party here -

[thewldisntenuff]

But is the problem that they aren't properly stating who the source code belongs to? I mean, I thought code-copy was okay in the GPL so long as you noted the GPL warning and who the code came from.....For example, I can repackage an OS and sell it with my own support, etc (a la CentOS -> RedHat), so long as I make such statments, right?

I really don't know - so it'd help if someone would explain it instead of modding me (-1, stupid)

Thanks

-thewldisntenuff

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[TelJanin]

You also have to give the source code to anybody that you've given the binary to, if they ask. However, you are not obligated to give the source to everybody.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[TelJanin]

You are allowed to sell the software. You are not allowed to keep the source to yourself. Somebody could re-sell GIMP for $200, and as long as they gave the source code to their customers it would be legal.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[gbulmash]

No, if you are using GPL'd code and selling it for profit, it is against the GPL.

Dang, someone better tell RedHat, SuSE, Lindows, etc., etc., on and on and on!!!!!

I can sell compiled binaries of grep for a billion dollars each if I can find someone willing to pay that for them. The GPL allows it. AFAIK, I just can't relabel it as FrepSearchIncredible, withhold the source code, and pretend it's my own unique product.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[cortana]

Erm... RTFL?

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[black mariah]

Where's the "DUMBASS" moderation when you need it?

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[DJCacophony]

Somebody could re-sell GIMP for $200, and as long as they gave the source code to their customers it would be legal.

This is only partly true. According to the GPL ( http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ), "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.", so you could claim that you're charging $200 for the transferrance, but I don't know how well it would hold up in court.
However, the license also states that when publishing something based off the GPL'd work, You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[PocketPick]

I am intrigued by this FrepSeachIncredible. How much are you looking for again?

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[OverlordQ]

I just can't relabel it as FrepSearchIncredible, withhold the source code, and pretend it's my own unique product.

And I think Maui X-Stream is doing all of these things

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[DJCacophony]

RedHat, SuSE, Lindows, etc., all charge money for their "improvements" to the OS, and for the act of building a complete working system. If they were merely selling the kernel, then you better believe they would be in trouble.

I can sell compiled binaries of grep for a billion dollars each if I can find someone willing to pay that for them. The GPL allows it.

Um, would you care to state where in the license this is explicitly allowed? Because I can cite where it's explicitly prohibited.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[slamb]

I can sell compiled binaries of grep for a billion dollars each if I can find someone willing to pay that for them.

But of course you can't find someone willing to pay. The GPL permits you to sell software, but it also permits any of your customers to undercut you by selling it for a lower price or just giving it away. So if you write some GPLed software, you can probably sell it once. If someone else wrote it, you probably can't sell it at all.

So there are two realistic ways to make money off GPLed software:

• Do custom development for a fee. Like a consulting business that develops niche software that probably only one company would ever use. They have more options in case you become unreasonable or go bankrupt, so presumably they'd be willing to pay more than for a proprietary solution.
• Sell an aggregation (like Red Hat Enterprise Linux), documentation, or support. This is what those companies you mentioned - RedHat, SuSE, Lindows, etc. - do.

These are valid ways to make a living, but they'll never be as lucrative as Microsoft's business model. Namely, to write the software once, sell it over and over, and sell the extras separately.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[DJCacophony]

A great book to read on this subject is "Open Source - The Unofficial White Papers". It has some great papers about building businesses off open source. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764 546600/qid=1115078180/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl 14/002-2477466-1646408?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Pinefresh]

or maybe a "misinformed" moderation...

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[slamb]

> > I can sell compiled binaries of grep for a billion dollars each if I can find someone willing to pay that for them. The GPL allows it.

> Um, would you care to state where in the license this is explicitly allowed? Because I can cite where it's explicitly prohibited.

No, you can't. The GPL is explicitly designed to allow you to do this, as stated in the preamble:

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

I suspect you're thinking of this paragraph:

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

But you're not required to give the source to anyone who doesn't have the binary, and you're not required to give the binary away.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Anonymous Coward]

Do custom development for a fee. Like a consulting business that develops niche software that probably only one company would ever use. They have more options in case you become unreasonable or go bankrupt, so presumably they'd be willing to pay more than for a proprietary solution.

An example would be MySQL world. BigCompanyZ goes to MySQL AB and says 'I want stored procedures in release 5.0 even tho it's not on your current development roadmap for 5.0. Oh, here's a bajillion dollars to do it.' And would you know it, we get stored procedures.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[DJCacophony]

No, you can't. The GPL is explicitly designed to allow you to do this, as stated in the preamble

That's just the preamble. It's just stating what the licence is, hence the term "preamble". However, in the actual license, it is stated

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Obviously the buyer qualifies as a third party.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[dragonman97]

He can sell it for a billion dollars each...provided he makes the source code available on request (and this presumes that customers are notified of the presence of GPL code, and their rights to request the source). The GPL does not prohibit the binary distribution of a piece of GPLed software - but the source must be available upon request (and even to recoup the cost of duplication/mailing, if applicable).

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[kz45]

Dang, someone better tell RedHat, SuSE, Lindows, etc., etc., on and on and on!!!!!

those companies never created the code. They earned their profits on the backs of other programmers (the ones not making a profit). Plus, they make their money on support, not the software itself.

I can sell compiled binaries of grep for a billion dollars each if I can find someone willing to pay that for them. The GPL allows it. AFAIK, I just can't relabel it as FrepSearchIncredible, withhold the source code, and pretend it's my own unique product.

which will make it very easy for someone to release a binary only version of your source, for free. Which makes it very difficult, if not impossible to make a profit (by selling GPLd code).

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[gbulmash]

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Obviously the buyer qualifies as a third party.

Yes, but I didn't say I was selling a license to use grep. I was just selling the compiled binary, the "physical product" as it were. It's my "grep" distribution and it is multi-fantastic-incredible.

- Greg

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[gbulmash]

I am intrigued by this FrepSeachIncredible. How much are you looking for again?

[In his best Dr. Evil voice] "One biilllion dollars! Muahaha!"

- Greg

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Anonymous Coward]

One hundred billion gajillion... yen!

people on monitor: MWAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHA!

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[X0563511]

You can charge as much as you want. It's the SOURCE CODE that you cannot charge for (other than reasonable transfer fee. like for the CDR it's on)

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Eric Pierce]

> AFAIK, I just can't relabel it as FrepSearchIncredible

Actually, you can.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Omnifarious]

There are two basic ideas in the GPL.

The first is that you cannot prevent people from sharing. So, if you sell someone a GPL program, you can't prevent them from handing a copy to a friend under the GPL.

The second is that you must allow people to make their own modified versions of the software. In order for this to work, they have to have the source code to the software. So, you must provide the source code if asked, and you are not allowed to charge extra for source code.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[MushMouth]

Not only that, I believe you can make the source available on any media you wish. In other words you can print it or better yet you can have it carved into stone tablets, and charge whatever the going rate for stone tablets.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, although I believe there is an obfuscation clause in there. I think stone tablets could be considered obfuscation.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[DarkOx]

Actually you are allowed to charge for the distribution of the source code. If I decide to send you the code on a floopy, I can insist that you pay me $0.20 for the floppy and whatever postage is. Similarly I could make you pay me for cost associated with bandwidth if you download it. Most people don't because the effort of attaching a dollar figure to you transfering 250Kbytes over my T1 probably would cost more then the transfer, and hey its the nice neighborly thing to do.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[yamla]

That's not true at all:

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

"any third party".

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[natmsincome.com]

You forgot the 3rd and 4th way which are catching on.

3rd. Charge a subscription for updates. Doesn't work for shrink wrap but for enterprise software it's great. Sure you can get the patches from other sources (CentOS etc) but if your a big company you can't afford the risk. (This is actually what RedHat is doing)

4th. Dual license, SugarCRM and StarOffice.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Dolda2000]

These are valid ways to make a living, but they'll never be as lucrative as Microsoft's business model. Namely, to write the software once, sell it over and over, and sell the extras separately.

Likewise, the leader of a free country will never be as rich or powerful as a dictator.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[zotz]

"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy"

Have you seen a limit placed on this fee anywhere? I haven't. (IIRC) I have seen limits placed on the fee you may charge for providing the source if you originally only supplied a binary.

"to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."

Sure, licensed to them, but you can still charge them a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy to them. Right?

Perhaps it is time for the GNU boys to put out a more extensive FAQ on the GPL.

all the best,

drew

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[zotz]

"But you're not required to give the source to anyone who doesn't have the binary, and you're not required to give the binary away."

Nope, if you originally provide only the binary, you must provide the source to any third party. (Who asks.)

If you transfer the binary and source together in the first place, that is all you are obligated to do. Right?

all the best,

drew

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Asgard]

Not so fast -- from the FSF FAQ on the GPL (enough TLA's?)

If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy? No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Buran]

Not so fast on the 'not so fast'. As long as you redistribute your app, you must give out the code. You can refuse to give the source if you don't redistribute the code -- but if you distribute, you must give out source.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[raynet]

and the GPL FAQ says:

What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?

"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it. If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer. The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.

So it's not just "any third party". Only people who got the binary are entitled to have the source code

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Tim C]

Yes, but it's people who got the binary *no matter who they got it from*. Say I distribute a GPLed work, and give it to a friend of mine. He then gives it to you. You have the right to ask *me* for a copy of the source, and so does anyone who you give it to, and so on. Likewise, people who receive the binary can ask my friend for the source (as he distributed the code to you), and so on.

If you distribute the binaries, you must supply anyone who asks with the source (who has a copy of the binaries).

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[fbjon]

Not so fast on the "not so fast on the 'not so fast' ". The original question was: can anyone take a project, repackage, rename and distribute (e.g. with added support), as long as one says: "this is a repackaging and renaming of Project Y, get complete source at www.Y.org/src". Is one required to distribute source that one hasn't changed?

And while I'm at it... Not so fast on the sig of the "not so fast on the ''not so fast on the 'not so fast' '' ": is there some new rendition of Eye of the Beholder in existence, preferably not a remake but a new story, preferably free (speech/beer) of course :) ?

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[raynet]

Ah, I read that the grand-parent said: "However, you are not obligated to give the source to everybody.", and you said: "That's not true at all... ..'any third party'." and parsed it as: "You have to give the source to anyone who asks for it".

In any case the FAQ clarifies it a bit. And it also makes commercial GPL development possible. If my company takes GPLed project X, modifies it and sells it to company Y for 1 million dollars, my company can be fairly sure that our modifications wont be "leaked", since company Y probably don't want to give their competitors free software they have paid for. And employees of company Y probably have some clause in their contract that prevents them from distributing the software.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[DJCacophony]

Have you seen a limit placed on this fee anywhere? I haven't.

which is why I said
"so you could claim that you're charging $200 for the transferrance, but I don't know how well it would hold up in court."

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Buran]

But why distribute your own project if you haven't changed anything? What's the point? Still, if I did such a thing, I'd probably find a way to distribute my exact project complete with the extras -- it'd confuse people far less to just get it from me if it were my project than trust that some other site is the same stuff.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Andy Dodd]

As the other poster mentioned, there's no limit whatsoever on that fee.

Note, though, that you cannot restrict anyone you sell your GPL software to from redistributing it for free. This is how the first widely available TIGER/Line Census dataset was distributed - Bruce Perens paid the (rather exporbitant) $1000-2000 "copying" fee to the Census Bureau for a set of 6-7 CDs, and then burning free copies for a select set of vendors and selling more copies for $10 IIRC. Eventually after he recouped his costs it all wound up on an FTP site. Two years or so later, the Census started putting up the TIGER data for free on an FTP site themselves.

And yes, I know the TIGER dataset isn't GPLed, but it has some similar redistribution rules to GPLed software.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Asgard]

Well, I was just addressing the statement that anyone can demand full source to a program that is GPL licensed, even if that program hasn't been distributed.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[suitepotato]

Given OCR, a dot matrix printer dump of the hex code is machine readable and was once a customary medium in some circles.

"Here's the code, binary and source, and all revisions. 73,944 pages. What is your drop ship address?"

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[Elshar]

But of course you can't find someone willing to pay. The GPL permits you to sell software, but it also permits any of your customers to undercut you by selling it for a lower price or just giving it away. So if you write some GPLed software, you can probably sell it once. If someone else wrote it, you probably can't sell it at all.

I think that's the main reason some of us aren't enamoured with the GPL license. I don't mind having to redistribute code to the people I distributed binaries to. But it is unfair to not allow me to restrict them (The people I gave binaries/source to) from redistributing my software I wrote for free, thus destroying any profit I might be able to make on the selling of the software itself.

Of course, I'm "free" to sell services, however.. What if its something that doesn't require ongoing maintainence, like say an really awesome irc or ftp client? I'm pretty screwed then.

Re:I may be a bit late to the party here -

[zotz]

"which is why I said" etc...

I know, which is why I asked if you or anyone had seen an upper limit placed on the physical act of transferring a copy.

I think you could try for 2 million dollars much less 2 hundred. Why would the courts get involved? Although this does bring up an interesting question. Must you make the GPL license terms and copyright notices available prior to sale or only upon sale?

If you see me trying to charge you 2 million dollars for a GPL program that someone else wrote, do you think you might try to find them and get a better deal? If it is my derivative, would you look around for a previous customer and try to get a better deal from them.

Nothing prevents us from shopping around for better prices on GPL software.

all the best,

drew

Well...

[Effugas]

To be clear -- using dshow filters, piped executables, and so on is fine by GPL; you're just not allowed to link the code into your application. It looks like they modified the GUI tools, though, without releasing source. That's not allowed.

Re:Well...

[shaitand]

"you're just not allowed to link the code into your application"

I wish people would stop repeating this. Some anal arse came up with this concept a long time ago and it did not make anymore sense then than it did now. The concept of a GPL violation during compilation or runtime is utterly ridiculous. If you allow that road of thought then running ANY software under the Linux kernel would be a GPL violation.

The exception in the Kernel GPL version is not there because it is needed, it is there to silence idiots who raise the question.

Re:Well...

[Effugas]

*shrugs* No, it makes complete sense. Copyrights control distribution, not use. If the use of a piece of code is to output some content, push something on screen, or whatever else, then anything can drive it -- open source, closed source, or whatever. It's only when you distribute code that insinuates itself at the source level that you need to share the code you added.

The Linux exception comes from the fact that you directly link chunks of Linux into your own modules when you create kernel modules. You are correct that it's ludicrous to consider the generic kernel syscall interface living under the same exemption.

--Dan

Re:Well...

[nenolod]

No, it makes complete sense. Copyrights control distribution, not use. If the use of a piece of code is to output some content, push something on screen, or whatever else, then anything can drive it -- open source, closed source, or whatever. It's only when you distribute code that insinuates itself at the source level that you need to share the code you added.

No, it does not make complete sense. It does if you are a freenode-using, FSF-supporting GPL Zealot, but under any other condition it does not make since (i.e. the real world.).

The Linux exception comes from the fact that you directly link chunks of Linux into your own modules when you create kernel modules. You are correct that it's ludicrous to consider the generic kernel syscall interface living under the same exemption.

You don't link syscalls. Syscalls are re-enterant entrypoints into kernel namespace, and their shims (AND _syscall()) are provided by glibc, NOT the kernel.

In the kernel, you call routines directly, not through syscall, unless they are inter-modular, in which case you use syscalls (but not the libc _syscall()), but only under those conditions.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

So if i write an application i cannot use anything piggy back off anything thats gpl? if i used the gpl software to say write a filter - that would be gpl - but say i write another program that uses that filter in another application. think microsoft DLL. i just have to ensure that the DLL is on the machine (if not i have to get it on) (A SEPERATE INSTALL)

Re:Well...

[Effugas]

No, it does not make complete sense. It does if you are a freenode-using, FSF-supporting GPL Zealot, but under any other condition it does not make since (i.e. the real world.).

*shrugs* I don't understand why people think the GPL is so onerous. Have you seen the tripe that gets put into EULAs? The GPL specifically says you can do whatever you want with this code, including merge it into your own projects and share nothing of them. It's only when you merge _and_ distribute that its requirements pop up, and if you don't like them -- well, negotiate something better.


You don't link syscalls. Syscalls are re-enterant entrypoints into kernel namespace, and their shims (AND _syscall()) are provided by glibc, NOT the kernel.

You need to use glibc to use the kernel? All those people with dietlibc will be very surprised to hear. The kernel has a set of numerically identified interfaces, each of which is triggered by interrupt. There are any number of ways of feeding these interfaces, but make no mistake -- it's kernel, not libc.

As for modules -- we're saying the same thing.

Re:Well...

[JabberWokky]

I don't understand why people think the GPL is so onerous.

Linux (GPL): Here. Use it however you want, but if you change it and share it, share the changes.

Windows (Commercial): Pay us $100 and don't share or change it. Agree and we'll issue you a license to run one copy.

--
Evan

Solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution: aaaaaaattackkkkkkk

try out the live chat!

[croddy]

Chat Information Please wait for a site operator to respond.
Chat Information You are now chatting with 'Gene'
Gene: Hello
you: where are you distributing the vx30 source code pursuant to the conditions of the GPL
you: hello?
you: a simple URL is all that is required.
Gene: If you knew what you were talking I would talk to you but...
Chat Information Chat session has been terminated by the site operator.

Re:try out the live chat!

[_Sharp'r_]

You know, for some websites, live chat is the most expensive part of ths site... all those call center reps to pay... not that you could slashdot a call center and run up a huge bill, could you ...?

Re:try out the live chat!

[patrat]

I just had a chat with "Gene" as well. I ask (very politely where) the source code was, informed him that under the GPL he was required to distribute it but then he decided to go offline. Damn, I was having fun! ;)

Re:try out the live chat!

[NeoChaosX]

Why the hell are you harassing chat ops? I imagine most of them aren't involved in it's programming, so why should you bother them for GPL violations when they most likely don't know what you're talking about?

Re:try out the live chat!

[Buran]

Sounds like HE didn't know what he was talking about and was trying to cover his ass by hanging up on you.

Re:try out the live chat!

[croddy]

boy, you must be the life of the party!

Re:try out the live chat!

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably because they are the public representatives of the company.

Re:try out the live chat!

[AndroidCat]

I tried and got someone called Liza.

> Hello, I am Liza.
* Where are you distributing the vx30 source code pursuant to the conditions of the GPL?
> Would you prefer if I were not distributing the vx30 source code pursuant to the conditions of the GPL?
* A simple URL is all that is required.
> Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.
* What?
> Does that question interest you?
* What are you wearin ..

She was no help at all.

Re:try out the live chat!

[croddy]

A+

Enough is enough

[bazmail]

Someone needs to stomp on these guys. HARD!
Or worse.

Re:Enough is enough

[Vorondil28]

...or as we say in the south, "Stomp them HURD!"

Re:Enough is enough

[surprise_audit]

I suppose it would be too tricky to feed them some bogus patches that would do something weird to their copies of the software?? We wouldn't want the bogus patches to get out into the mainstream, after all...

A bit of both, really...

[mph_az]

as 'free' software pops up on the radar of increasingly unscrupulous people, more violations are taking place. At the same time, as the community gains more experience with people unfairly taking advantage of GNU software, they are becoming more vigilant.

Not really an interesting question, to me the interesting question is...what the hell made them think they wouldn't get caught again?!?!

Re:A bit of both, really...

[thegrassyknowl]

Not really an interesting question, to me the interesting question is...what the hell made them think they wouldn't get caught again?!?!

Do it a few times, get slapped on the wrist a few times. They think "the community thinks I've learned my lesson - they probably have stopped checking up on me"

It's that simple, really. That or they're run by 2-year olds who just don't learn and always think they won't get caught again (yes I have one of those).

Re:A bit of both, really...

[bcmm]

Yes, they wouldn't want to be caught again, after what happened last time, would they?

Oh, wait... Nothing really happened last time. Do they really care about being "caught"? Unless someone actually sues them, they'll keep going.

Hopefully not a growing trend

[coupland]

My question is, what's to stop this sort of behaviour? Most free software projects operate under a tight budget as it is, how many have the funds to sue anyone who misappropriates their GPLed code? If every victim has to solicit donations to fund a lawsuit then what's to be done? Sure the FSF can probably help, but I doubt they'd have the resources to defend the GPL on multiple fronts if violators launched a wholesale attack.

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[RealAlaskan]

Sure the FSF can probably help, but I doubt they'd have the resources to defend the GPL on multiple fronts ...

I suppose that if the expenses started to get out of hand, the FSF could take a few of the more egregious offenders to court, rather than settling. Or, they could simply start demanding a large cash settlement from the real bad guys. I'd say that their work could be self-funding, if they wanted to get mean.

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[Audacious]

Actually, now that the GPL has been shown to be valid in court, it should be getting easier to have a lawyer represent you in court. Donations are then not needed because all you have to do is to make sure your lawyer gets paid when the money is collected from the people who have stolen/misappropriated/converted your GPL'd code into their applications.

This is NOT to say that you can just go down to your local street corner and have lawyers rush towards you with open arms, gushing with enthusiasm about wanting to represent you in court. But any lawyer who deals with copyrights, patents, and such should have a very good grasp on how to go about dealing with people who misappropriate computer code. In many cases, all it really takes is for a lawyer to write a halfway decent letter to the offender for them to back off. Thus, for less than $300.00 you can probably find a lawyer willing to write the letter to the company.

This is also not to say that the person to whom the GPL'd code belonged could not write a letter by just getting one of those Business Lawyer CDs and using the template letter to send a cease and desist letter.

But I would use a lawyer. Mainly because it gives more force to what you are saying and/or doing.

(And yes, IANAL! Not all of the time mind you - sometimes I'm just a normal person - but right now IANAL!) ;-)

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[retro128]

Well looking at the price of the software, and assuming it is ripped off from GPL code, I'd say that the primary goal here is to make a lot of money without having put put in any up front R&D or programming costs. The key word here is "money". If enough was made, I don't think the real author would have any trouble securing a lawyer on contingency to sue the pants off of these guys. The ability to sue isn't the problem. The real problem is building a case and proving that the software is based on someone else's code using evidence gained from looking at a compiled executable. But I guess it's not a problem a subpoena can't solve.

But then I figure what would happen is Maui-X would play the "trade secrets" card and settle under the table to avoid public embarrassment.

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[infiniti99]

My question is, what's to stop this sort of behaviour?

Nobody, unfortunately. When "Integrity Messenger" ripped off the Psi Jabber client, none of us could afford to pay for a lawyer. We tried to raise awareness by spreading news about the violation, but this only caused Integrity Messenger to threaten me with a lawsuit for slander (or something to that effect) and so we shut our mouths. I've been on a waiting list with the FSF since 2002 to get this case resolved, but nothing has happened. Christian Rishel, the evil behind Integrity Messenger, left last year and the company looks defunct now.

The worst of it is that it was entirely deliberate. Mr. Rishel tried to hire me for a relicensing deal and I declined, and so he told me I'd "get fucked someday". Considering I haven't seen an ounce of source code from these guys, or any compensation, I'd say he was right. Even if the FSF were to sue them today (and yes, I'm still in the queue), Mr. Rishel would probably not be affected. So I guess he got away with everything.

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[JoshRosenbaum]

Damn, that sucks. :( I'm sure there are plenty of projects with this same problem, too. It's amazing the pathetic qualities of many humans these days. Not only can they get away with stealing your code, but they can get away with being a bitch to you about doing it as well. It's like someone stealing your car, repainting it, and then telling you to fuck off, and it's their car.

I hope the company is defunct now. I think the GPL needs to add a clause that requires payment of one million dollars for any GPL violations. Then a lawyer might take up the case for free if there was a blatant violation, as he could get part of the payout.

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[NineNine]

If you've ever needed legal services, you'll know that it's very tough to get a lawyer without a massive retainter, unless the lawyer is 99% sure that you're gonna win (GPL isn't anywhere near this). Also, what are you gonna do about China...?

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[Anonymous Coward]

by just getting one of those Business Lawyer CDs and using the template letter to send a cease and desist letter.

Hell, who needs a template CD, just copy one of the many RIAA/MPAA C&Ds posted online....

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[Buran]

It's not slander if it's true.

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, now that the GPL has been shown to be valid in court, it should be getting easier to have a lawyer represent you in court.

And what court would that be? To the best of my knowledge there is precendent in the jurisdiction in question (HI being in the US 9th and given that CA is also in this circuit I am sure news of this would have been given wide distribution.)

European copyright law and US copyright law are two different beasts, please do not confuse rulings in one realm as having any application in the other.

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[Anonymous Coward]

To the best of my knowledge there is precendent in the jurisdiction in question (HI being in the US 9th and given that CA is also in this circuit I am sure news of this would have been given wide distribution.

Case law can be set at any court level - state or federal, appellate or not. The 9th Circuit Court is one of many courts that could be involved in legal precedence for a case in Hawaii. Without doing full research on the case in question (along the lines of what you see at Groklaw), you can't definitively say whether or not the GPL is reinforced by other cases in that jurisdiction.

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[rob_squared]

IANAL always bothered me. It sounds like a porn ripoff to I Robot.

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[Krach42]

The Software Freedom Law Center will happily work to defend many projects, which are distributed under the GPL. The center is run by Eben Moglen. --- Yeah, the guy who wrote the GPL.

Their desire and mission is to go above what the FSF could do for projects, and actually provide real support and help to those people who are having their GPL rights violated.

The majority of times they can do it pro bono (and as was mentioned above, most times, they need only send a letter) but there are some cases were prohibitive costs would require the author to provide payment for some actions (such as hiring a lawyer in Hawaii, or flying a lawyer out to Hawaii, if necessary)

So, if you're having problems with some company ripping off your GPL code, shoot an email out to the SFLC, and see what they can do for you.

Oh, and by the way, the majority of offenders quickly either wise-up or apologize for their ignorance on the licensing issues almost immediately upon receiving a letter saying that they're violating the GPL. Again, most companies comply, and it were either accidental (and they comply because they want to comply) or a poor attempt at hiding it (and they comply because they don't want to get sued.) Only a small handful of companies will actually go to suit over a GPL violation (especially since they can't win, because even if they declare the GPL invalid, traditional copyright applies, and they never had rights to the code anyways)

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[Audacious]

I have needed legal advice and have gone through two court cases (one in big civil court and one in small claims civil court). I retained a lawyer for $300.00, took the people to court, and wound up owing my lawyer $14,000.00 since the big claim guy was a sole proprietorship and had no money. Therefore, I am PAINFULLY aware of just what could occur. Which is why I suggest sending the letter.

But the sending of a letter is only the beginning. There is a lot of work you have to do such as finding out whether or not the company even is a corporation or sole proprietorship. If it is a corporation, then it is likely that they will have insurance (since $500,000.00 insurance can be had for less than $500.00 a year in some places).

One of the great things though is that you don't have to actually sue the company. Instead - go see the FBI. GASP! THE FBI????! Yeppers. The company is selling your software without your permission across state lines. That makes it a federal offense.

Or you can contact the local police where the company resides. You can do this in two ways: 1)Use the long distance operator (1-800-555-1212), 2)Look them up via MapQuest.

To use the long distance operator you will have to know the city, state, and zip. (So you will probably wind up using MapQuest anyway.) Call up the operator and ask for the District Attorney's office (or sheriff's office) for that area. Lodge a complaint against them or find out how to lodge a complaint. File the necessary paperwork. Have fun. :-)

Use small claims court. Most localities allow for up to $5,000.00 in small claims court. If the company has a 1-800 number (or 1-877) you can file against the company in your area and have the case heard where you are located. (BUT IT DOES HAVE TO HAVE A NATION WIDE PHONE NUMBER! Otherwise you have to go there.) Anyway, you should be able to file against the company and if they don't show up - you win. You can then place a lien against the company and no one will give them money until that lien is taken care of. :-) Cost of small claims court? Usually somewhere around $100.00 and about an hour of your time. How many times can you take them to court over this? Well! The NEW copyright laws seem to favor multiple zaps to a company. (Or to put that another way - for each occurance or infraction.)

Again, I would consult with a lawyer - but if you also do some research of your own you can probably handle things in small claims court and save yourself a lot of money.

Now, for the "What about China" et al? Simple. Contact your local Congressman/Senator and present them with a letter. Explain how your GPL'd code is being stolen by this company in country X and ask if they can contact the representative from that country. Be nice and polite to the Senator/Congressman and they will do what they can. No promises but every now and then miracles can happen. Just remember that this will put you squarely on the side of the MPAA, RIAA, and any other company who has had to do this to some small time person who either sold their products out right or who stole their code and used it in another program.

In fact, that is the question you are going to have to deal with. Because when you fight for your code you are doing the same thing those people we all love to hate are doing. :-/

Re:Hopefully not a growing trend

[Audacious]

Just a short "Me Too" to add my voice to the other poster who responded to your post.

But I would like to draw your attention to the many court cases where the courts in the US look to the European courts to see how they have handled things. They do this usually because something came up in Europe first. Several of the other countries around the world which claim to be democracies (or are democracies) sometimes also look at these rulings to see if the rulings in their countries have merit. If they do, then the judges in the US do use some or all of that other court's rulings. (The old - don't re-invent the wheel thing.) When they do this though, they also include information in their ruling citing the other court's ruling and why they are going with what that court did/said.

To be fair, sometimes the US courts use a ruling from another country which is controversial to everyone living in the US. In fact, I have had many times when I have become extremely angry over a court ruling because it was based upon a WIPO mandate which contradicted the very basis of some of the laws in the US. (And that is because WIPO is out for big business and not anything else. I would not care if they started calling themselves Peace Loving God on Earth. Their only function is to try to wringe an extra penny out of everyone. They advocate double dipping on the selling of anything (ie: You pay every time you use that hammer you bought), ignore human rights as they pertain to fair use, and are causing so many problems it is not funny.) WIPO, as far as I am concerned, is George Orwell's Big Brother from the book 1984 and the sooner they are gotten rid of the better.

Still, that particular rant aside, the US courts do use and acknowledge what the European courts do and say. Just like the European courts watch to see how we do things in our country. (See the recent Microsoft versus the European Courts and MS has wound up having to take IE out of Windows.) Not that they always use what we do in the US (The European courts decided MS was a bit too powerful and thus IE has to be removed.) - but they do watch to see what is going on.

Kill em.

[jericho4.0]

And if I see the "innocent until proven guilty" argument, I'll flip. This guy is a con artist, and the OS comunity needs to deal with it.

Replace "kill" with "sue" if you live in such a legal enviroment.

Re:Kill em.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why must the operating systems community deal with it?

Have you seen the price???

[stox]

$799.00, holy cow, whatta deal!!

BTW, what happened to 1.0?

Re:Have you seen the price???

[Anonymous Coward]

That is awfully pricey. It costs a $100 more than the whole Linux OS does! :p

Re:Have you seen the price???

[Doyle]

Does that price include a $699.00 SCO Linux licence? I want to make sure I'm legal with all this...

Re:Have you seen the price???

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone have a torrent or a site to download it?

Time for a court injunction?

[davidwr]

Is it time to get a court injunction?

Perhaps the time is right for a "GPL Clearninghouse" whereby authors can "contract" limited enforcement responsibilities to the clearinghouse. If PearPC and the items currently in question were both enforced by this clearinghouse, the clearinghouse would find it a lot easier to enjoin these people from ever violating the GPL again with respect to ANY code under its management.

Judge, to the officers of Maui X-Streme:
"You are hereby ordered to comply with the licensing restrictions of any and all code which now, or in the future, is owned or managed by The Clearinghouse, provided that The Clearinghouse informs you or the general public that it is managing the code in question. Failure to do so will be contempt of court, punishable by jail time. This order will be reviewed every 24 months. Do you understand?"

Re:Time for a court injunction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someone should get a hold of the RIAA? I think they have some experience with clearinghouse handling of copyright infringement issues. Maybe the FSF is the animal that needs sharper teeth? Maybe more free software developers and enthusiasts should be donating/pooling resources to present a bigger gorrilla to those entities which are choosing to infringe?

Re:Time for a court injunction?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I have been thinking about the GPL and enforcability. I think there might be a real problem with standing, in that who is being damaged do to the copyyright violation? It seems to me that the only person who could actually bring the suit would be the person who wrote the code.

Re:Time for a court injunction?

[cowbutt]

Perhaps the time is right for a "GPL Clearninghouse" whereby authors can "contract" limited enforcement responsibilities to the clearinghouse.

This is exactly why the FSF asks authors to sign ownership of their works over to the FSF; so the FSF can take on any GPL violations that may occur.

Re:Time for a court injunction?

[poot_rootbeer]

Doesn't the FSF already serve the "Clearinghouse" role you propose for many of the larger GPL'd products?

I'm sure to be modded down for this, since I'm pointing out a drawback of the GPL, but legal expenses are a part of doing business, any kind of business. Companies will never respect the terms of the GPL unless they face financial damages for failing to do so. If the author/copyright owner of a GPL'd work is unable or unwilling to pursue legal action, the risk of facing consequences is near-zero.

Geez...

[nxtr]

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Re:History repeating, in a way

[black mariah]

And precisely what GPL code has MS used? Start naming names and header files, or shut the fuck up.

Acquisition

[slamb]

I think it's getting worse. They're by no means the only violators; just the most flagrant.

I recently discovered that Acquisition (a popular Mac OS X gnutella client) is using GPLed Limewire code. It's not anywhere on the main Acquisition website, acquisitionx.com. The website implies the whole thing is written by David Watanabe. It's shareware with nag screens. Most users will never know there's Limewire code used. The most obvious place it's mentioned is the fine print of the "About" box.

There is some source available, at AcquisitionX.org. (There are no links from the other site. Found it through some googling.) This is the "core" of Acquisition, a modified version of LimeWire's core code. But the actual UI code is not released. The developer claims this is "full and complete compliance with the LimeWire GPL", but it's not. The key characteristic of the GPL is that you have to release applications that use GPLed libraries under the GPL themselves. He's following the terms of the LGPL instead. If they'd meant to release it under that license, they would have! He's profiting from other people's work without following their license or giving them proper credit.

(Sorry for making people click through. I deliberately have no links to either Acquisition site because I don't want to increase his PageRank.)

Re:Acquisition

[Quickfry]

eTomi Pro does a similar thing. They say the software is free, but you have to pay to download it. It's like limewire, with a few UI tweaks (the sources for those changes weren't made available) I know people who've been jewed by etomi.

Re:Acquisition

[Anonymous Coward]

While this is way off topic, and I doubt it was meant deliberately, but "jewed" is for many an extreemly offensive phrase.

Re:Acquisition

[Stormwatch]

So THAT's why Acquisition is so damn slow, it's as slow as Limewire. I use Poisoned instead!

Re:Acquisition

[Steamhead]

The net core of Acquisition is piped rather then linked, thus it is in complete compliance with the GPL.

Re:Acquisition

[Anonymous Coward]

You doubt it was meant deliberately? Are you kidding?? Many of the loony left wingnuts here on /. are clearly anti-semites...

Just like Sen. Robert "Sheets" Byrd can't help but let the N-word slip every once in a while, these jew-hating liberal dorks occasionally let their politically-correct facade drop long enough for some of their true feelings to spill out.

Re:Acquisition

[Muramasa]

The net core of Acquisition is piped rather then linked, thus it is in complete compliance with the GPL.

For the benefit of people like myself, who aren't coders, could you explain what this means exactly? thanks.

Re:Acquisition

[don.g]

It means that the app *may* *technically* be in compliance with the GPL (but they're scum for doing it like that). Essentially, they will have an executable with the GPL code, and then an executable with their code (and no GPLed stuff), and some way of communicating between the two. This means that they can get away with releasing only the source for the executable with the GPLed code in it, but it's not terribly useful by itself. The Mac OS X IM client Proetus does this, using GAIM's networking code.

Is it GPL compliant? Maybe; the MySQL guys seem to think that talking to their database over the network amounts to "linking", where as most people traditionally have taken this to mean "merging their code with mine in the same executable".

Is it scummy behaviour that should be discouraged? Absolutely.

Re:Acquisition

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, the MySQL guys qualify as kind of scummy too for trying to convince people to probably buy unnecessary licenses.

Everyone's just out to make a buck. :-(

Re:Acquisition

[BollocksToThis]

To claim it's scummy behaviour is pretty narrow-minded of you, IMO. You may not like it, but it's legitimate, just as it would be for me to make a proprietary IDE that uses GCC to compile the code. It may not please RMS, but that's not the only measuring stick for good software. If you don't like that way they create their product, don't use it.

Re:Acquisition

[BuilderBob]

There's also a few possible violations with cMacTex (a shareware carbonized latex) and MacGhostView (a shareware carbonized GhostView). No GPL licences are obvious in the distributed files and there's no obvious place to download the source.

Some of the tools are piped between the carbonized GUI and the command line program (e.g. dvips), the author cites memory leaks in dvips as a reason for this.

BB

Re:Acquisition

[Tim C]

The MySQL guys are wrong. Imagine Apache was GPLed rather than Apache licenced - following th MySQL guys' reasoning, all web browsers that access an Apache-hosted site would have to be GPLed.

Re:Acquisition

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like that way they create their product, don't use it.

Or if you don't like the way they are using their product in conjunction with your GPL'd project then maybe you should've considered using a different license or writing your own.

Re:Acquisition

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, so when I browse through cvsweb repositories of GPL'ed code served by Apache from a Linux host, then that makes my Windows XP box a GPL violator. WTF?!?!?

Re:Acquisition

[Anonymous Coward]

So, we hate Tivo? Cause that's basically how they do it with their custom filesystem tools which pipe things outside the kernel.

Re:Acquisition

[rob_squared]

"Watanabe?!"

That sounds too much like wannabe, maybe this David fellow doesn't exist...

Re:Acquisition

[Anonymous Coward]

"Jewed" is indeed extremely offensive to some. That's why I perefer to use "gyped" or "niggered".

Re:Acquisition

[jschottm]

I recently discovered that Acquisition (a popular Mac OS X gnutella client) is using GPLed Limewire code.

[flamebait mod, here I come]

I'm sorry, but given that the majority of gnutella users (yes, I know there's exceptions, so spare me the tales of Linux ISOs, music that's been released for sharing, and fansubs that the owners look the other way on) are using it to trample over the rights and desires of the people that created music, movies, and software, I doubt they're going to be shedding too many tears over the rights and permissions of GPL software developers. The developer's website makes it pretty clear that its intent is to download music illegally. Develop software that caters to people that want to get around intellectual property rights, get users that don't care about intellectual property rights.

The most obvious place it's mentioned is the fine print of the "About" box.

I doubt most of the people using the software care if it contains GPL code, BSD code, or Superman's DNA, just so long as they can get their free mp3s. If they found a registration key for Acquisition, I'm sure they'd use it without caring how it affected the author. After all, they deserve whatever they want.

Re:Acquisition

[don.g]

I'm perfectly within my rights to disagree with the actions of others, legal or otherwise. But you don't have to agree with me :-)

I also don't see any problem with developing a proprietary IDE that uses GCC to compile its code; you're using interfaces provided by GCC's original developers to do that. But to take an existing GPLed app or library, and add an RPC layer to it so that you can use it from within your non-GPLed code which you intend to distribute to others is fairly clearly against the wishes of the copyright holders of that GPLed code; if they'd wanted you to be able to link with their code from your proprietary app, they'd have used the LGPL or some other similar license.

Re:Acquisition

[BollocksToThis]

I'm perfectly within my rights to disagree with the actions of others, legal or otherwise.

Absolutely, I just said it was pretty narrow minded to call it scummy. You can disagree all you like, but I don't see why you should impugn the developers and imply they are being immoral.

For example, if I took "GPLShare", a fictional P2P program that used terminal I/O, and wrote a GUI wrapper program around it that redirected input and output internally and sent control 'keystrokes' in response to the GUI, that wouldn't be scummy by your reasoning, because that's basically what my IDE would do with GCC (I would need to capture gcc's output at least - I wouldn't necessarily send keystrokes).

However, if I modified GPLShare to make communication between it and my GUI wrapper more effective in some way (perhaps to get access to some internal info) that IS scummy.

A third possibility is that I modify GPLShare so it displays the information I want to receive via the terminal, then alter my app to read this as in the first example. Is it scummy now? Where is the line?

(In each case, assume I have released changes as required, but not the code to my GUI wrapper)

Re:Acquisition

[don.g]

I am also perfectly within my rights to subscribe to some idea of what is immoral that disagrees with others :-)

However. My big complaint would be if you took a code-level (function calls and the like) interface and wrapped it with an RPC-style interface specifically for the purpose of insulating yourself from the GPL code, effectively letting you treat it as if it was LGPLed -- making changes for the sole purpose of making it work better with your proprietary software.

So in that case, scenario one is okay, and two and three aren't.

Why? Because I wouldn't want someone to do it with my GPLed code. It would be especially annoying to see some Mac OS X shareware developer take something I'd done, replace the UI with a shiny Mac OS X GUI, and then charge USD15 for using the result.

Re:Acquisition

[BollocksToThis]

making changes for the sole purpose of making it work better with your proprietary software.

But case #3 doesn't do it solely for the purpose of my program - it might be information that would be desirable to some users of GPLShare, but wasn't originally displayed. The changes to the original program are available, so users don't have to use my closed app to make use of this new feature. I may have written it with self-interest in mind, but that doesn't mean it only serves that end (and that's how most good software is written anyway).

It would be especially annoying to see some Mac OS X shareware developer take something I'd done, replace the UI with a shiny Mac OS X GUI, and then charge USD15 for using the result.

But you wouldn't be annoyed if someone did the exact same thing, providing they didn't alter your code? From an end-user point of view, cases #1 and #2 are identical - I have replaced your UI with my own. #2 potentially adds some functionality it didn't have before (theoretically making a better app), but #1 is the only option acceptable to you? Even though I might slap a GUI on your code and charge $15 for it?

I see your point, you'd rather not see someone use your free code to make themselves money, but if you choose a license that allows it, shouldn't you expect it? I doubt the authors of the GPL were unaware of this particular possibility, but they didn't add a clause to prevent it (if that's even legally possible, I don't know the details for any country's legal system).

Re:History repeating, in a way

[gellenburg]

Wasn't Internet Explorer originally based on Spyglass Mosaic?

Wasn't that originally licensed under the GPL?

Wouldn't that make any subsequent versions of IE based originally on Spyglass Mosaic?

Show me the source!

MOD PARENT UP! /. GOT PWNED YET AGAIN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can smell the astroturf from a mile away!

So what is the GPL equivalent?

[dark-br]

Becouse I would be happy to have that java video on demand on my site but I could not find a free (as in beer and as in speach at the same time) solution.

Does anyone of you fellow /.ers know such a solution?

Regards,

Addario

Re:So what is the GPL equivalent?

[Dolda2000]

as in beer and as in speach at the same time

Maybe you'll have more luck if you try free speech instead. ;-)

String 'em up

[winkydink]

it's good for the men and it'll teach 'em a lesson

Price Breaking

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the situation getting worse or is community just getting better at finding the violators?

Violators? Price-Fix Freedom Fighters!

paying for Firefox!

[Arctic Dragon]

Are you interested in purchasing Mozilla Firefox Arctic Dragon Edition? It's yours for only 4 payments of $39.99 and a $50 monthly Update Subscription fee. If you want the source code, it will only cost you an additional $150!! Wow!
This offer ends soon! Call now! Not available in stores.
Call 1-800-GPL-FUCK

DISCLAIMER: If you're a Mozilla developer and you see any similarities between your code and mine, it's only a coincidence.

Re:paying for Firefox!

[lewp]

I desperately want the number 1-800-GPL-FUCK.

Re:paying for Firefox!

[Anonymous Coward]

I want 1-800-GM-TRUCK

...as the joke goes, make up some story about: "Hey you (insert victim here)! You're a winner of a new truck! Blah blah blah... Call this 800 # to claim your prize."

Re:paying for Firefox!

[Anonymous Coward]

I desperately want the number 1-800-GPL-FUCK. Well, too bad, its a phone sex hotline... Seems like those 1-800-GRL-FUCK people beat us to it :( Could be a good excuse though ("No, I swear it was about the GPL!")

Re:paying for Firefox!

[Anonymous Coward]

I desperately want the number 1-800-GPL-FUCK.

Well, too bad, it's a phone sex hotline...

Seems like those 1-800-GRL-FUCK people beat you to it :(

Could be a good excuse though ("No, I swear it was about the GPL!")

Business Model

[porkface]

I'm sure they made a small chunk of change on the CherryOS scam. Now they're just doing it again and hoping to skim some cash before they fess up and retreat.

Someone needs to put them out of business for good if we're to claim any success in stopping GPL fraud.

Or the phone number...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like they've stopped answering the chat. Maybe ask them over the phone instead: 808-661-5699

Re:Or the phone number...

[Anonymous Coward]

Toll free is better (costs them money): 1 (866) 661-5699

Re:Or the phone number...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that toll free for international calls too? 'cause I'm in Argentina, just picking up will cost them a nice amount.

Re:Or the phone number...

[techfury90]

I decided to have a little bit of fun using myiprelay on aim calling them up (I know I forgot the toll free number and used the 808 one, sorry):

My IP Relay: . Please hold for the next available operator. PLS ENTER THE NBR U WANT TO DIAL GA
techfury90 : 8086615699 GA
My IP Relay: IP RELAY RO 9560F DIALING 808 661 5699 PLS HD
My IP Relay: RING 1 (F) GOOD AFTERNOON
My IP Relay: (EXPLAINING RELAY) GA
8:30 PM
techfury90 : hello i would like to know where the GPL source code to your VX30 software and cherryos is located ga
techfury90 : as far as i know, you aren't distributing it, which is a GPL violation.
techfury90 : ga
My IP Relay: IS THIS A RXX MARKETING
My IP Relay: HELLO HELLO HELLO (HUNG UP ANOTHER CALL QQ) GA

rxx marketing? wtfbomb.

Re:Or the phone number...

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Toll-free is within the country. You'll be paying for the Argentina-US bit, but without the cost of the connections inside the US.

Re:Or the phone number...

[Anonymous Coward]

Payroll for the person answering the phone is likely larger than the cost of them paying for the phonecall. If it is outsourced, i'm not sure which would be more.

Re:Or the phone number...

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

Funny story about IPreplays-

A few years ago in IRC we used to do some pretty sick prank calls using IPreplays, along with generally having fun at the relay operators expense.

One time we got this relay operator to finally break her 'recorder persona'

I think one of the guys got her phone number and met her leading up to sexx0r if i remember correctly

Re:Or the phone number...

[techfury90]

Haha once I got one to talk about how they hate their job... but nowhere as nice as that story haha.

Re:Or the phone number...

[Anonymous Coward]

Use SkypeOut to phone them over and over again :P

Re:Or the phone number...

[xcham]

Hehehe. We called from Canada just now.

Them: "Good afternoon Maui X-Stream?"
Me: "Hi there, I'm inquiring about your software pricing..."
Them: "Who's calling?"
Me: "Just an interested consumer."
Them: "I'll transfer you to sales."
* hold music *
Them: "Good afternoon this is Gene may I help you?"
Me: "Yes I'm interested in the pricing of VX30"
Them: "Which specific product? Did you mean the Encoder, the Live Streaming..."
Me: "The encoder."
Them: "$799."
Me: "Seven hundred ninety-nine?"
Them: "Yes."
Me: "And is the source code included?"

*CLICK*

Ahhh well.

Can anybody confirm?

[labratuk]

From the description, the 'VX30' codec looks like Theora, and the Java player sounds like cortado. They even say they're using Vorbis as the audio codec, which wouldn't surprise me.

Re:Can anybody confirm?

[labratuk]

Hmm. Don't think this is cortado.

Re:Can anybody confirm?

[WWWWolf]

I have a vague recollection that someone at that PearPC thread had taken a look at the codec and found it to be an XviD ripoff. Don't know about the applet, but I know jffmpeg support XviD and people have probably already done various other MPEG4 player applets... so it isn't particularly far-fetched.

Re:Can anybody confirm?

[nenolod]

Actually, it isn't theora. It's XViD with ogg bitstream encapsulation. Cleanroom reverse engineering practices can be quite useful.

Also, you can choose either vorbis or MP3 for the audio track. (Same thing, encapsulation.)

So, in reality, it's a bloated piece of crap. :)

Re:History repeating, in a way

[Holi]

Well considering Spyglass Mosaic was a commercial browser and was not GPL'ed. It was an enhanced version of NCSA Mosaic which was also not GPL. MS licensed Mosaic from Spyglass in 1995 in a lucrative deal for Spyglass where they would receive a quarterly fee plus a percentage of Microsoft's revenues for the software. We all know what happened next. All in all Spyglass got screwed now worms rule that thar intrweb thing.

So basically you have no right to the IE source code(not sure why you'd want it).

When all else fails, work up a #6 on them.

[t0qer]

Quote from the movie blazing saddles.

Taggart: I got it. I got it.
Hedley Lamarr: You do?
Taggart: We'll work up a "Number 6" on 'em.
Hedley Lamarr: "Number 6"? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that one...
Taggart: Well, that's where we go a-ridin' into town, a whampin' and whompin' every livin' thing that moves within an inch of its life. Except the women folks, of course.
Hedley Lamarr: You spare the women?
Taggart: NAW. We rape the shit out of them at the Number 6 Dance later on.
Hedley Lamarr: Marvelous.

Re:History repeating, in a way

[Anonymous Coward]

NCSA Mosaic licensing information

Call Them Up!

[Jukashi]

Seriously here their number: 1-808-661-5699

I just gave the guy a piece of my mind, if we all do it...well they'll just change the number - but its fun! lets hear some recordings!

Re:Call Them Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Toll free: 1 (866) 661-5699

It's time for revenge!

[Spy der Mann]

Let's put a final to this. We MUST make a precedent. And we have to make a model punishment.

Yes, we have to invoke... Katana Tux! (grrrrr)

They're stoned. It has to be that.

[JumpSuit Boy]

To much of that Maui-wowwie . Come on it's the only thing that could explain how stupid these guys are.

I'd say we're getting smarter

[Spy der Mann]

Specially with a dedicated website for posting these frauds.

Re:I'd say we're getting smarter

[Anonymous Coward]

Specially with a dedicated website for posting these frauds.

Is there a corresponding "white list" of vendors? IOW, those who release software under GPL and have no outstanding complaints or accusations?

All this for nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a shortcut in the begining and work twice as hard in the end.

frikkin cheaters allways acting like they didnt know what they did was wrong.

i called maui x stream

[Ravenrage]

and when i asked about when they are going to release the code i was told quote "if those lazy bitches on slashdot bothered to check the evidence they would know it contains no gpl code" and when i asked about the fact that the claim can be verified i was told "fuck you" and then they hung up

Re:i called maui x stream

[rincebrain]

Mod parent underrated, if it's true, this is quite interesting, and shows that either we're all idiots (no comment), or their phone staff has no idea what they're talking about.

Re:i called maui x stream

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironicly, coming from a corporation, that was refreshingly frank.

Re:i called maui x stream

[northcat]

That's a pretty outrageous claim you're making. How can we know it's true?

(Yeah yeah, I know, I'm captain obvious)

Ratio of "Stupid" Customers to Informed Customers

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument only holds water if you're assuming that potential cusomers are informed and discerning.

If FrepSeachIncredible can pull off the same trick as Sunkist Oranges (where consumers are paying a hefty premium for a little purple stamp) it could work brilliantly.

Personally, I am hoping to get in on the ground floor of FrepSeachIncredible. Maybe we could even get SCO to sue us as part of the marketing blitz.

Their Con Is Working?

[wan-fu]

Assuming that this really is a GPL violation, then I'm surprised they've already got some big names to fall for the con. On their own website, they make mention that VX30 was used by HFPA. I was incredulous of course and decided to do some fact checking. Well, turns out, it's true! The video gallery over at the Golden Globe awards has an icon for VX30 which links back to MXS.

Here's what I think would be the most hilarious thing of all:

1. the code turns out to be a GPL violation.
2. HFPA gets mad, makes a ruckus - especially to the movie industry
3. movie industry sues MXS
4. ???
5. Slashdotters celebrate and rejoice over the movie industry suing someone

Wouldn't that be something?

Re:Their Con Is Working?

[Anonymous Coward]

The usual two slashdot jokes:

4. Profit!!!

I for one welcome our new GPL voilating overlords.

Looks like they don't want angry calls:

[Bri3D]

Company /Contact

Please Register Your Information With Us First

I don't think so.

mod +1 irony

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA and Free Software hand in hand?

Oh the irony of it all.

Re:History repeating, in a way

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain what using the standard windows media API has to do with the gpl?

Re:How Is This Particular Instance

[LnxAddct]

Err Red Hat has always provided full source to everything and has never tried to hide the fact that it uses GPL code. In fact it thrives on it, Red Hat produces more open code then any other entity. This includes gnome.org, the kernel, apache, gcj, and most other major open source projects are maintained mostly on Red Hat's payroll. Linus never seemed to have an issue with anything they did, he did afterall take something 10 million dollars worth of stock that they gave him for free just for his contributions. Some major open source folks work at Red Hat, everything from top kernel maintainers, to the guy who wrote the first gcc c++ compiler. People very rarely appreciate what Red Hat has done for the community.
Regards,
Steve

Re:History repeating, in a way

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no it wasn't.

They took the BSD networking stack for Windows '95 (and NT?) but then there was a bug found in the BSD networking stack and Windows wasn't susceptible, so it'd diverged enough by then (which was around 98/99 or something).

They sold GPL Unix toolkit software for a while, but now they give it away.

Any other examples of BSD/GPL licenced software in Microsoft?

HFPA selected?!

[crypto55]

If you go to Maui X-stream's page about the Golden Globes, it says that it was selected by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. How did such a company reknown for its "illicit commerical activity" manage to get exclusive access to providing video bandwidth for the Golden Globes?! Even more alarming, who decided that... "VX30(TM) is ranked by www.playerless-streaming.org as the best playerless streaming solution on the market today. The software employs a patent-pending technology which allows for higher compression of video files. The dramatic reduction in file size results in significant cost savings on bandwidth usage. VX30(TM) instantly broadcasts TV-quality images over the Internet at 30 frames per second." Either they're flat-out lying, or they have some good connections, because nobody has seemed to realize the connection between their software and GPL licensed stuff. Although, to be honest, I was pretty impressed with Maui's website and performance, even with the unplausible sources of the software.

Flamebait, but just for the record,

[Anonymous Coward]

Red Hat has always made all derived source code available to purchasers, which is all that this company would have to do to play by the rules. Not asking much, is it?

Has to be machine readable

[MushMouth]

I guess stone tablets are out, however 5 1/4" floppys or those bigger ones would probably pass muster.

I would!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would buy Mozilla Firefox "Arctic Dragon Edition" if only it had the browsing tabs assemble from the top down to the botton, left-side justified on the web browser's viewing pane; and when the tabs are overloaded it can quick-scroll with only a mouse move event and no clicking.

I think that is worth something. Besides this, I believe VX30 to be a valid product and everyone is jealous because that can take a generic product with almost no userland gui and conduct a great product. It is almost like everyone is complaining because someone made some money on a public domain algorithm. Is that what GPL is about, replacing public domain as an option to freedom and preventing people from using the most complex algorithms even if the algorithm were hundreds of thousands of lengths of code? That is awfully sick and you all deserve to be punnished by Johnny Cochran, because he's rolling out of his grave to look for brains to eat.

The Microsoft business model?

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

Get lucky in getting the defacto industry leader to choose your product.

Lie, and bribe others to lie about your product being fit for the application.

Lie and bribe others to lie about your product being the standard.

Dump to undercut the competition. When the competition goes to the dumping model in defense because the courts will take too long, use kickbacks, bribes, rebates, etc. to push your product. If dumping still doesn't work, bribe the police to look the other way and send some muscle around.

When people complain, say it's "only software".

Microsoft's business model will catch up with them, but as long as we roll over and let them run their "business", we pay the consequences as well.

Not better...not better at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many companies that use GPL-ed stuff, and just do NOT give access to the code.

Take Motorola for example. They use some form of Linux on some models of cell phones. Can anyone point me to where I can get the source for this?

That's just one example. I'm sure there are others.

Re:Not better...not better at all.

[sydres]

kernel.org just set your compiler to build for x y or z platform (assuming the gcc has been ported) write the boot code and the base kernel source practically runs itself maybe a few minor tweaks. since motorola is probably using a standard embeded cpu like an ARM, PPC, DRAGONBALL, etc the cpu specific code is already available Google for it.

never sayeth what thou don't know lest thy enemy ken thee a slashdot reader

A favor?

[Tibe]

I really don't like MXS as much the any other good slashdotter would. However, I can see that what they are doing, no matter how wrong, has some benifits.

They are hopefully going to be the final deadset example for what happpens to companies who violate the GPL.

Please, any lawyers (with or without attached lasers) do whatever you have to do to make this a landmark case.

Thanks in advance.
- OS fan boy.

'at it again'?

[drew]

i was under the impression that this had been known for some time. when i saw the headline i thought that they were distributing some new gpl ripoff, not something that has been discussed for (almost) as long as the cherryOS mess.

then again, this is slashdot...

Maui X-Stream, funded by

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

Microsoft, MPAA, and RIAA.

Has Anyone Bothered

[Greyfox]

To report them to Hawaii's AG and the Better Business Bureau yet? Let the AG get up in their shit with a fraud investigation and see how many more times this wart on the dong of the open source community reappears after that...

writing codecs is hard

[sjf]

writing high quality high compression codecs more so. It takes PhDs, time and money. They don't spring fully formed from the breasts of crooks. Who is the genius behind this ? No doubt he or she very well known in the SIGGRAPH crowd.

What about these guys?

[rk]

These guys look like all they're providing is stuff like GIMP and Open Office. Unless the disks have the source on them, I somehow doubt that they're exactly complying with the GPL.

Got to love their mailing address. A PMB at a P.O. Box.

Re:What about these guys?

[ross.w]

If you look on the web site, in amongst all the "free steak knives" style market speak, they do mention that you get the source code on the CD.

Re:What about these guys?

[Trumpetgod2k1]

Wow. The screen shots are of an out-of-the box KDE install running OpenOffice. The title bars, although kinda blury, definatly say "OpenOffice.org" in all of them. The filename of the "Writer" screenshot is "openofficewriter.jpg." These guys didn't even try.

Re:What about these guys?

[rathehun]

From the website:

An absolutely, positively, true replacement for Microsoft Office now finally does exist!

Luxuriousity Office Professional can be installed in single or multiuser configurations.

Luxuriousity Office Professional includes an Application Programming Interface (API) that enables you to control Luxuriousity Office Professional components by using various programming languages. A Development Kit is available for the new programming interface.

We are a licensed Community distributor. Luxuriousity Office Professional is fully licensed so you have full usage rights. In addition, you also have access to the complete source code and the right to modify the program and re-compile a new version your own specifications! Try asking Microsoft for that with their office program!

So yeah, apart from the language which looks like the boss's 13 year old daughter wrote it, I think it's following the GPL. It also mentions that it's been written by Sun.

Cheers, R.

Re:What about these guys?

[rk]

Yeah, I see that now. That much marketroid-speak did exactly what it is supposed to do and my neurotransmitter reserves fell towards zero. ;-)

But wait! There's more!

Re:What about these guys?

[WWWWolf]

They have various versions of GIMP (Including a special "real estate" edition!), OpenOffice.org, Audacity, CDex, QCAD, Blender and Art of Illusion, last time I counted.

This company has been around at least 'til 2003, and I highly doubt that they would have survived unless they actually put the source code on CDs they sell. So they're probably not GPL violators. Just using really, really deceptive marketing and making themselves look like complete slimeballs.

Though I have doubts about them providing source in all cases. For example, only their most expensive ripoff of Audacity seems to include "source code licensing".

Re:What about these guys?

[T7g]

I was poking through the Luxuriosity site, and in their support section, on this page http://www.luxuriousity.com/supportinstall.htm If you scroll down about a quarter of the way, you'll see a spot where they forgot to search and replace "OpenOffice.org" with Luxuriousity, as seen below. If you still encounter problems, you may want to try launching OpenOffice.org manually. With your X server running, open a Terminal and execute the following four commands: setenv DISPLAY localhost:0 setenv DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH /Applications/OpenOffice.org1.1.2/program:/Applica tions/OpenOffice.org1.1.2/program/filter cd /Applications/OpenOffice.org1.1.2/program sh soffice

CherryOS = Cherry Open Source?

[cbr2702]

Have you noticed that http://www.cherryos.com/ currently says:

Cherry Open Source Project

Re:CherryOS = Cherry Open Source?

[Juvenall]

Shortly after they "relaunched" CherryOS, they shut down the site and claimed they were going to release the program as Open Source on May 1st. As you can see, we're past that "deadline" and it looks like this Open Source version is a no-show. I be you're shocked, right?

I'm putting my money on that never happening and the whole thing being a stunt to drive attention away from their shady business practices.

Make it free

[randomErr]

They are making an easy to use version of free software for profit. So here's a wierd idea: Copy thier work and make a free or low cost version of the same software. Learn from what they did and recreate it.

Re:Make it free

[Anonymous Coward]

If there be any softwares that deserve a good a-warez-in', it is 'wares like these 'wares. Arrrg!

Death wish?

[booch]

Yeah, it almost seems like this company WANTS to get sued. They keep trying the same thing, even after they get caught. I'd be surprised if they don't get what they're asking for.

Idiot.

[northcat]

What a loser. I bet my five year old cousin can pull off a GPL violation better than this guy. He's so pathetic that I almost want to hire a hooker for him. Or give him a dirty magazine and some tissue paper.

An offer

[grolschie]

How 'bout I offer you three sharks with frickin' laserbeams for your FrepSeachIncredible?

Him, or his agent

[davidwr]

However, with items like the Linux kernel with many contributors, any contributor can insist you not distribute a copy that includes his contribution in violation of the license he issued to you.

See elsewhere in this thread for a way to handle this.

Re:Him, or his agent

[Anonymous Coward]

And her dog Toto, too!

GPL Insider

[gilkyboy]

We could sneak one of our corporate spies into their company and form a hostile takeover of their website as well. Just apply by sending an email to jobs@vx30.com YOU could be the one responsible for getting the GPL code released as it should be!

You're reading the GPL out of context

[Anonymous Coward]

so you could claim that you're charging $200 for the transferrance, but I don't know how well it would hold up in court.

You are wrong. The section of the GPL that you are referring to is discussing the source code that you must provide. While you are required to give the source code to all requesters if you distribute the binary at all, you are allowed to charge a nominal fee to cover your costs of the source distribution (i.e. cost of media and mailing, though a few nasty folks have taken to violating this chunk of the GPL, trying to charge $60 or so for source to the software involved).

You can charge *whatever you want* for the binary. You can charge a million dollars for the binary, if you want -- but if you distribute that binary at all (including selling it), you *must* also provide GPLed, redistributable source with it (actually, there are some minor variants, like allowing giving a reference a download to the source in some cases, or an offer to provide the source for a nominal fee, but this pretty well sums it up). You must allow the party requesting the source to redistribute it under the GPL.

So you can certainly sell GPLed software. Red Hat does it every day. What Red Hat cannot do is prevent people from replicating their distribution. (Red Hat actually is extremely nice about this, since they could legally be assholes like SuSE and make their installers non-GPL -- instead, they freely provide downloadable ISOs of their distribution. In return, they get more community respect than SuSE does.)

Re:You're reading the GPL out of context

[DJCacophony]

So you can certainly sell GPLed software. Red Hat does it every day.

Redhat doesn't sell GPL'ed software. They give it away for free, and charge for the additions they put into it, and the physical act of assembling a complete distrobution. Just like SuSE doesn't charge for the linux kernel, but for things like Yast2.

stop giving them press!!!!!!

[Mark19960]

and they will GO AWAY!

the more its brought up, the more they do to get in the news. its only GOOD BUISNESS PRACTICE...

they dont care about the GPL, open source, ect.
they just want free exposure, and they are getting it.

People that buy Monster cables

[Anonymous Coward]

How about idiots that pay $100 for their Monster A/V cables? This becomes especially funny when they're buying cables to carry digital data. How's *that* for a profit margin? I mean, *Apple* catches flak for raping their customers on price, but Apple is fuzzy and cuddly compared to Monster.

Maui X-Stream is probably committing fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

If companies are knowingly selling software which they have no right to sell (because they are not complying with the GPL), they are committing the crime of fraud, and people at the company can go to jail.

Now, granted, I'm not sure whether a DA would care about some open source project enough to prosecute without a lot of complaints (prosecute the mugger or some guy ripping off a bunch of people who are giving their software away for "free" anyway -- easy choice), but I would assume that it doesn't require tons of money and lawyers on your part.

Re:Maui X-Stream is probably committing fraud

[PygmySurfer]

IANAL, but wouldn't GPL violations be a CIVIL issue, and not a CRIMINAL one?

Re:Maui X-Stream is probably committing fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

They try to avoid the consequences by making prosecution harder. "It was an honest mistake. We'll fix it and then you can have the source. Just give us a little time." Open Source projects hardly ever enforce their licenses even in the face of blatant violations. What are they going to do when a company pretends to play nice but really just drags out the source release until no one is interested anymore?

rel=nofollow

[supersat]

If you want to link to somewhere without affecting its PageRank, you can use the ref="nofollow" attribute in your link tag. In fact, it looks like slashcode adds it automagically if you don't use your karma bonus. However, since it's automatically added, I'm not sure if it'll pass it through when you post with a karma bonus. Of course, whether people should deliberately use this is up for debate.

Maui are small-time compared to these

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL violators are all over the place.

Check out http://www.clicksandlinks.com/

This "software developer" charges $1000's for OpenCMS GPL software licences, claiming that it develops it itself.

Their "Roundabout" product is just OpenCMS with the GPL licence and source removed. They are scamming public money and no-one is challenging their violation.

Re:How Is This Particular Instance

[kristopher]

Jobs is that you? It surely doesn't sound like you.

Money has already exchanged hands

[OwlofDoom]

Theoretically, this could be the big one for GPL violations, as money has already exchanged hands and the product is 'out there' in the real world.

The VX30 technology has been purchased by (among others) the HFPA, creators of the Golden Globe awards. The technology is being used on their website and has been for a some time. (And here is the press release made by MXS at the time of the sale.)

At the time of the CherryOS debacle, someone on here mentioned that VX30 looked like a GPL ripoff too, but I thought that was just typical /. energy making five from two and two. Now it turns out that their flagship product is probably a GPL violation, it will be very interesting to see how MXS deals with the coming lawsuits.

what was the name of that site?

[marafa]

there was a site set up by somebody who regularly contributes to the kernel. he actively goes after companies that use linux in their software+changes and do not return those changes to the community.

i would like to say he does so effectively and successfully. but for the life of me, i cant remember his name nor his site.

Re:what was the name of that site?

[heavy snowfall]

http://www.gpl-violations.org/

"Latest"?

[Trillan]

Actually, this product is older than Cherry OS. The GPL volations were discovered after, that's all. I think they probably started behaving with Cherry OS in an effort to stop this from being spotted.

It's Free Software, not Open Source

[CarpetShark]

The GPL is about Free Software, not open source. I don't mean to whine pointlessly, but it's an important distinction. Open Source folk wouldn't like it if you called their work "shareware", so please try to use the correct terminology.

source?

[willCode4Beer.com]

So, have any of their customers *asked* them for a copy of the source? Have they attacked any of their customers who share copies? May questions are addressed to your statements. Am I missing the point?

Re:source?

[Rashkae]

They also have to communicate to the customers, in writing, the terms of the GPLS under which the software is licensed to them. But that's splitting hairs.

Re:source?

[Omnifarious]

If you read the other comments, they have refused to share source with customers. Also, they do not sell you it under the terms of the GPL, but under some other license terms, which is also a violation of the GPL.

Re:source?

[willCode4Beer.com]

Actually, I did not see one comment stating that they refused to share the source with a customer.

I am not defending the actions of the company, I just don't want to jump to conclussions as I am not fully informed.

Re:source?

[willCode4Beer.com]

have we heard from any customers?

"customer" seems to be the keyword in this debate. I haven't seen any statements from any.

Re:source?

[Rashkae]

well, this may be giving people I don't know too much credit, but I'm guessing whoever analyzed the binaries to find the 'evidence' that they contatin GPL code wouldn't have bothered if that detail had been been disclosed. Unless, of course, he/she was working off pirated copies that were not distributed complete with the license terms.

Re:source?

[Omnifarious]

Yes, most of the comments I saw along that line, it wasn't obvious whether or not the person was a customer. That would be a good test to run. Who has $800 to spend? :-)

source?

[willCode4Beer.com]

I thought the GPL meant they only had to give source to their customers who ask for it (many previous posts also point this out). So my question is, have any of their customers asked? Are we getting riled up for nothing or have they denied giving the source to their customers? TFA doesn't really cover this point which would seem to be the most important.

Awful Summary

[NewStarRising]

" ... launched a suite of tools that once again takes advantage of GPL'd code ..."
What is wrong with this?
GPL code is sellable.
Can the summary please include the actual newsworthy bit?
e.g. " ... GPL code, without complying with the GPL ..."

Reading "launched a suite of tools that once again takes advantage of GPL'd code " without any qualifiers makes me think "Oh, good! someone making a business model with GPL code! I like! I might buy that!"

I would ask about proof-reading, not just for spelling/grammar, but also content, but then, this is /.

Re:Awful Summary

[UlfGabe]

mod him up scotty.

i just ran out of mod points...else i would have done it myself.

this is very important, instead of inciting a stumbling in the dark /. mob of opinions allow us to understand the situation by using good journalistic practices(not the ones commonly used in the media today)

So much work

[Soothh]

Why dont they stop trying to swindle, and just offer these programs and just charge for support, or for the media.
Seems like an awful lot of work just to keep getting called out on it.

Clarification?

[yetanotherluser]

Everybody is going to hate me for this, but if I get even a few thoughtful responses, it will be worth it. When Tridge's BitKeeper reverse-engineering project came into question on slashdot, there did seem to be a general consensus that he never accepted the restrictions of BitKeeper's license, and was therefore not bound by it. That is, if I understand correctly, as the (non)LICENSEE he had the ability to refuse the terms of the license and proceed outside of its restrictions. Now, when the offense is against GPL software, it seems that only the LICENSOR has the authority to determine when someone is bound by the terms of the license. Isn't this somewhat contradictory? Along the lines of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too? I'm sorry for mentioning what I know will be regarded as an inflammatory topic. Believe me, I think abuse of GPL software in this manner is wrong. However, I can't help but feel that reverse-engineering proprietary software can cross the line at points, and that what Tridge did, from what little I understand, was also wrong by the same standard. Where exactly is this line drawn? Exactly how much *more* valid is the GPL than a commercial license? How is it OK to just use commercial software against its license terms by claiming the right to reject the license, without offering people the same right with regards to the GPL? By all means, please enlighten me; this has been bothering me for weeks now...

Re:Clarification?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the GPL, especially this part:

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this license. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Re:Clarification?

[yetanotherluser]

Wow; I don't know if I ever noticed that paragraph, but if I did, I had forgotten it since. That covers most of what I was failing to realize, and answers most of my question.

So I guess, then, that one of the key points to note is the definition of "derivative works" under the GPL and copyright law in general, and the fact that copied code constitutes such while reverse-engineered code does not?

Thanks for indulging the question; the point is greatly appreciated!

Screw that

[gr8_phk]

Companies knowingly in violation of the GPL seem to view it like this: "We can use this code for free and violate the license, and if we get caught they might make us comply with it". Most previous enforcement actions enforce this view.

Stop making them comply with the license. Sue them for copyright infringement and put them out of business. This is a consequence that companies can understand.

Better make damn sure they are in violation first. It would be nice to ask them to comply first rather than going straight to court - then you can go once they've knowingly violated the license.

In this case, someone mentioned that the GPLed code may not actually be linked so they may be in compliance. I had considered that before - there are other ways to inter-operate with a piece of software without linking (make it a server, use pipes, etc...) and these modifications are entirely possible when you have source code. Just release the modified "server" source and sell your closed source app that uses it. This shouldn't cause outrage, if you want the app to be open source, write one.

Re:Clarification? Here you go.

[markdowling]

If you don't use the software, you aren't bound by the licence. As Tridge didn't use BK he didn't feel himself bound by the licence. BK felt he was because he did work for a company which did accept the licence even if he personally didn't use BK.

The post refers to the use of software by a company and rebranding it. The use creates the licence link, leading to the violation thereof.

What's so hard about this?

Re:Clarification? Here you go.

[yetanotherluser]

Thanks for being civil. ;)

What I don't get is that as I've read the story (and I may have misunderstood), Tridge reverse-engineered BK by connecting to BK software on a BK server. I don't quite get how this doesn't qualify as 'using' it. More specifically, I think we're discussing 'use' in different contexts, but I can't pinpoint the difference between 'using' commercial software and 'using' GPL code. It's not that I can't see it as you describe it (or even that I don't agree), it's more that I can see it both ways, and it seems that I must still be missing something, although I wonder if it's the fine points of implicit acceptance (as you put it, "The use creates the licence link") that I'm having a hard time with.

Thanks again...

Re:Clarification? Here you go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tridge reverse-engineered BK by connecting to BK software on a BK server. I don't quite get how this doesn't qualify as 'using' it.

Google runs Linux. So by your logic, you're using Linux just by visiting Google's site.

You're not bound by the terms of the GPL just because you typed a query into Google, nor did Tridge agree to the BK license just by typing 'help' into a telnet session.

Re:History repeating, in a way

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't Internet Explorer originally based on Spyglass Mosaic? Yes

Wasn't that originally licensed under the GPL? No

Wouldn't that make any subsequent versions of IE based originally on Spyglass Mosaic? Possibly, but they had permission to do that.