Slashdot Mirror
Maui X-Stream: GPL Violations, Lies, and Damn Lies
Jeremy writes "Drunkenbatman is at it again. This time he takes apart Maui X-Stream and all the who and whats that go along with it. Deconstructing Maui X-Stream has GPL Violations with reproducable proof (not done this myself), chat logs, and double talk from the CEO's and supposed authors of the software."
I thought it turned out that they were following the GPL by providing source.
The source may have been provided in a locked filing cabinet inside a disused toilet with a sign on the door saying "beward of the leopard", but it was made available.
It's already getting slow...
l og-archives/000534.html
http://www.drunkenblog.com.nyud.net:8090/drunkenb
I've been looking into aquiring a shit covered leopard. Where might I find this toilet?
I believe Arben. He just seems like such a trustworthy, honest person.
Just kidding obviously. I read through this last night (skipped a few parts here and there), but wow, talk about talking out your asshole! I can't wait to see if Maui X-Stream launches any lawsuits against drunkenbatman (or anyone else). Should be entertainment on the level of the SCO fiasco if it happens.
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Is it just me or do articles starting with copies of letters from lawyers always turn out to be good?
This smacks of that Phantom/HardOCP thing. As long as their lawsuit is "pending" or they're persuing "legal options," their customers (are there any? ok, fine, potential customers) will think this guy is lying. They're just trying to put off the unavoidable death of their pathetic company.
You, sir, are a troll. From the horse's (or, more appropriately, goat's) mouth (aka the GPL FAQ):
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
Q: Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?
Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.
You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.
The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version. In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right, but does have the right.
Just
This was a unusually well written, well-based article with a lot of good facts. The proof is overwhelming and is clearly accurate. Maui X-Stream, Inc. really got their pants pulled down like they deserve.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
That's why this keeps happening.
If I do this, and get caught...so what? What's the penalty? Exactly who is going to prosecute?
What if this CEO came right out and said "Yup, copied the whole damn thing from Sourceforge. What are you going to do about it?" What happens next?
PS: Not trolling, genuinely curious. All the focus seems to be on "Is the GPL enforcable", not "Who shall enforce it". And IMHO, both are important.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
GPL violations seem to be getting more and more common. Take for instance eMule, where an eMule+ developer is knowingly breaking the GPL while working for a proprietary company called MetaCafe:c =72668 (login probably required)
http://forum.emule-project.net/index.php?showtopi
http://forums.metacafe.com/viewtopic.php?t=139
The worst part is probably that the eMule+ folks, who forked the eMule codebase and should be well aware of how the GPL works, are directly contributing to this violation.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Have a look at:
:: CHERRYOS IS NO MORE ::
http://www.cherryos.com/
Now they are saying:
and they are linking to:
http://emaculation.com/
What they hell are these guys doing now?!?!?
If they want to sue this man for slander , well then they can also sue me for libel. From what i have just read it is fairly aparent that the *cough* makers*cough*/gpl-violaters of chery OS have done it again and are trying to abuse the gpl once more .
.Anyone buying your products should realise this and realise that they are funding an organisation with no ethics and a dubious reputation . .
..... .
To MXS
To me your company (MXS) is nothing but a bunch of liers and plagerists
If i am wrong and your honest(which i doubt) then i apoligise but from what ive seen today just shows more evidence that you should be taken to court for this
Your Sincerly
Fidel-catsro(A.K.A G.T.K)
If they want to take Drunkenbatman to court then i say we all join in and acuse them and see who far they get trying to take us all to court
I havn't had time to fully read overevery last bit of his findings (fairly lengthy read and rather well done) but from what i have seen it looks like they didn't learn the first time.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Got him, yes, piss off, you're out!
Does it go on forever?
Dear drunkenbatman:
It has come to my attention that you have acknowledged the giant pink elephant in the room. As you neither asked for nor received permission to acknowledge my client's said pink elephant nor to publish any information describing or defining said pink elephant, I believe you have willfully infringed my client's rights under 17 B.S. Section 1 and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $99,(many zeros) as set forth in Section 1234 therein.
I demand that you immediately cease acknowledging the pink elephant and that you deliver to me, if applicable all pictures, descriptions, and big steaming turds you have unlawfully made notice of.
If I have not received an affirmative response from you by 1 second prior to you reading this, indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, I shall take further action against you.
Very truly yours,
Arden & Jim
So, you don't want to allow others to see your stuff, but you want all the advantages of simply taking what they produce and do not want to follow the condition the many authors of the work ask? Very interesting. Now Microsoft will in fact let you have the source code. Citrix recompiled NT to make a very successful product. Microsoft only asks for money in return. That is there condition, that and you can't distribute the source. Oh, and a couple other things, hardly worth mentioning.
If you really want to use a freely available operating system but don't want to redistribute the source, look into a BSD licensed OS. I prefer OpenBSD myself but FreeBSD, NetBSD, Dragonfly and heck 4.4 lite are all sitting out there and are just waiting to be used. You may have heard of some of the smaller companies that use BSD code in their products; MSFT and Apple come to mind.
Everyone has some sort of restriction to what you can do with their stuff. While I don't believe your lawyer is correct with the gcc thing, directly modifying GPL code requires you to do X Y and Z. Z in this case is make your changes available so others can build on your nifty tool. Tivo releases some of their source, uses some LGPL code and simply has stuff they can't or are unwilling to release in their own complete binaries. Go figure, there are ways even if you can't use GPLed code directly with your stuff.
You really need to get a better grasp on the work that you do. I mean, it is not like you were shocked SHOCKED I say when Microsoft asked for money with their product were you? Linus, RMS and the rest just want their fair compensation too, just not in money.
Although the gcc thing sounds like garbage to me I will say theGPL font thing really needs to be hashed out for GPL3. I assume it will be.
I hate it when I feed trolls.
While your answer is correct, you don't seem to have addressed the OP's (OT's?) argument, which is that he's supposedly required to release the source code including his changes. This is only true if they were selling their modified versions to other people. Since they were in no way (that was mentioned) selling compiled binaries or modified versions of anything, they are under no obligation to publish those changes.
In short, feel free to do whatever you want with GPL'd code in house, just be sure you're ready to give all those changes back to the community if you decide to sell the product you made with it.
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
This whole subterfuge around CherryOS never was needed. If MXS understood the GPL, they CAN sell the code along with some NON-GPL'd code. That's perfectly legal. What isn't is what they did. They DID not distribute the code. They completely did where they got it from (and not that well) and never acknowledged the PearPC project at all. The fact that he's closing down proves he just doesn't understand. All he had to do was release source. THAT'S IT! End of story. He had to release the PearPC code and any modifications he made to the GPL'd parts. He could have still had his front end be closed.
Gorkman
ermm, change the word "sell" to "distribute" up there...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Open source is so good so many companies claim it as their own in their products without credit. How tough is it to say "Built on Open Source with credits to...."? I know of dozens of "appliance like" devices that are like this. When you ask the vendor they say "we wrote it all" and just by the look and field you know Squid/BSD/OpenSSL/SSH are at minimum inside.
Make no mistake, the commercial software industry is the biggest pirate of code there is on the face of this planet. All developers routinely use google to search for code snipits and these programmers are from big companies like Oracle and IBM to little startups of all kinds. At least IBM acknowledges it's involvement and contributes to many like Linux.
Most companies should not be embarrassed, to me it is a selling point as no one company can do it all.
One un-named company actually had the gall to tell one of my managers they "Invented Spam Assassin". Needless to say I sufficiently set management straight by a few select web pages and suggested if they lie to us now what will the support be like?
Don't deal with companies that lie about the origins of their product.
Don't waste your breath. The grandfather of this article is indeed a troll, albeit disguised. I have seen this post on several occasions here on slashdot. It's a simple cut-n-paste from a troll-text repository designed to provoce.
"Please provide me immediately a list of MXS customers contacted by you and the dates on which the contacts occurred. Please also supply me the name of your counsel."
not unless directed to do so by the courts
Make them spend the time and money.
If courts tell you to provide the list, then respond with a blank sheet of paper.
It's only fitting to use their own lawyers against them...
he doesn't have to give changes to the community, only to the clients he distributes to. Selling has nothing to do with it.
In the same way that he got rid of all Microsoft products after finding out how the BSA will (with the help of armed police officers) raid the place looking for un-accounted-for copies of Microsoft products (or other big manuracturers products), on suspicion (even after an anonymous tip) that some copies are not paid for?
However, there are always new folks reading who may not know this, and it's good to provide the correct information for their sake.
Not only is the article well written, but he shows the pattarn of innfingment, throughout MXS's current product line, future products, and past programs 'alegedly' written my Arben. At the bottum of the article (if you can get that far without geting just digusted with MXS) he mentions PDFConv which was a blantent ripoff of PDF2HTML. I certianally hope that all the projects that he contacted in his investigation attempt some form of legal recourse. Even if Jim Krates and Arben is loaded with cash, they will soon run out if everyone that was wronged files a seperate suit in seperate states, forcing them to have to fight mutiple battles simultaneously. Just look at the drain on SCOXs finances with their sue the world campain.
Ahh.. The mind what a wonderful trap!
GPL violations are a lot more common than most people think.
Just because it doesn't hit the mainstream media doesn't mean that thousands (yes, thousands of OSS projects out there are being actively violated by commercial enterprises). A few years ago I caught Sony doing this and reported about it (picked up by Slashdot here based on my account).
But that was relatively small potatoes to another GPL violation we've had to deal with. The CEO of a mobile company (who shall remain nameless, thousands know who he is) took our code, stripped our names and attribution out, removed the COPYING file (our copy of the GPL license), put his name all over it, and claimed he wrote it. He also waffled and lied over the years about which parts of our project he was and was not using. His stories changed back and forth (and I have all of the emails confirming these wishy-washy statements).
When we started seeing companies giving away binary versions of an application that looked suspisciously like ours (and I mean pixel-for-pixel identical) without any source, attribution or links back to the GPL, we started calling those companies and requesting the source for compliance. Since these companies had no idea who we were, they referred us back to the company they bought it from.. the original one who took our code from us outside of compliance with the GPL.
Then the threats started coming in... from the CEO of the company that originally took our source. My favorite quote from him:
We were appointed an amazing attorney by the FSF, and she represented us well. I even went to NYC to meet with this CEO with Wendy to discuss how they could bring themselves into compliance. The CEO insisted that "..the GPL is not a license, its subject to interpretation... it was never reviewed by real attorneys or tested in court", and then proceeded to tell me to fire my attorney, right in front of her, because he said she wasn't giving me correct information about the law. Yeah ok, except she TEACHES law, and this CEO does what again? Oh yeah, steals other people's products for his own profitous gain.
He continued to threaten us for contacting his "partners" (who were also not transferred the GPL when he sold them "his" product [using our code]). Of course his threats fell on deaf ears, since it is our duty to require compliance with our code no matter who uses it.
The case goes on now, 4+ years later, but some interesting facts have come to light and we may have some official corporate backing from someone he believes is a partner of his... this is FAR from over, and he has absolutely no idea what mountain of legal stress is heading his way.
Wendy has moved on to the EFF now, and we have some new legal contacts at the FSF to try persue this further, but they're busy with lots of other cases.
If anyone is interested in hearing more details, feel free to contact me. If you want to support our case against companies like this, please visit our donation page and contribute to help us fund more legal support (or just because your appreciate our work: Don't forget to check out our Plucker eye-candy page).
We're a Unix shop. Don't use a lot of Microsoft products. Any letters from the BSA would go to legal for them to deal with.
He realised that if we made the slightest mistake under the terms of the GPL,
If you use GPL code, admit it, and release it.
It's pretty simple, there is no reason to make mistakes.
You're harming open source!
I prefer the term helping.
If people who don't want to follow the intent of the GPL are scared to use it GOOD.
We don't need to waste time and energy enforcing the GPL. Better to have those who would violate it not bother from the start. It's better for us, it's better for them.
There's a Maui Giclee, owned a Jim Kartes, that sells art reproduction prints. Umm, I'm sure that Maui Giclee has all their copyrights and licences in order, but ..
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
your boss is an ass hat
it's *very* simple to have an ftp server with the source code
it's very simple to use CVS to host your project on source forge
so, we'll keep shouting, thank you very much, we don't need no stinkin' favours
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
This is not completely true. You are only required to give the modified source to people to whom you give the modified kernel, at no additional cost. Of course they have the right to distribute it further.
For internal projects (where you don't distribute binaries at all), this means that you don't have any obligations at all. Only if you distribute the compiled code, you have to distribute the source along with it.
But of course, if you base your business on distributing binaries based on secret proprietary changes of existing code, then GPLed code isn't for you.
And this one is completely wrong. There are absolutely no requirements on code compiled by gcc or other GPLed compiler, except if that requirement comes from elsewhere (if you link a GPLed library, compiling with gcc will of course not void the requirements from that). Moreover the libraries which come with GCC have an explicit exception so that linking to them (which is more or less unavoidable) will not cause your code to be covered by the GPL).
Why didn't you just use some BSD variant? This would have given you all you wanted: Ability to freely modify the source code, and the ability to distribute the resulting binary code without passing on the source modifications. Moreover, being also an Unix-workalike, you probably wouldn't even have had to rewrite most of your code from scratch (of course those parts dealing directly with the kernel would have to be rewritten anyway).
You know, there's more in the Open Source world than GPL and Linux. Sometimes you can have your cake (keep your changes for yourself) and eat it, too (get source code for free, with the right to modify as you please).
BTW, it's just silly to base development on some code before checking the license. You cannot blame the GPL for not making your homework of actually examining it. I hope for you that you didn't make the same error again, and this time asked your lawyers about the details of (now Microsoft's) license in advance.
So what exactly is unfair with the GPL? It didn't fit your business model, that's all. And what's more fair on MS's "Shared Source"? I don't think I'd be able to freely distribute modified versions of it in source form, so I could as well consider it unfair that I may not just distribute my own work based on it freely. If you want something with no strings attached, go BSD.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
The software was used in the Golden Globe awards. Since customers of commercial copyright infringers can in turn be sued for copyright infringement, how about one of the copyright holders suing the MPAA? You have to admit that would be interesting to see :-)
The outsourcing angle piqued my curiosity. What if, and this is a very big if, MXS had no knowledge of the violations.... what if all of the code theft was performed by shady outsourced coders?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
If you use GPL code, admit it, and release it.
And if we're not but someone thinks we are?
If people who don't want to follow the intent of the GPL are scared to use it GOOD.
We do. We also want to follow the intent of all our other licences, some of which are incompatible. If someone claimed our heuristic optimisation software contained portions of GCC, what could we do? It does't but we can't prove it. We can't release the source because it uses third party code under a licence that does not allow this.
Act 221 technology development tax credit recipients in Hawai are not public record. You can read a bit about it on this site by a rather enraged party.
If anyone has access to Act 221 recipient info, you might want to read the parent referenced article.
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
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.
The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed ... to all third parties." Who are these third parties? ,p>
Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version.
We are the 198 proof..
It's not easy to provide source code that we have no right to distribute. We're keeping away from it as much as possible jsut to avoid any allegations. False allegations are just as damaging, and we can live without that shit.
Why would we need to use an FTP server? We're not going to give the software away. We charge people to set it up and configure it. If we used GPL code, we'd simply include the source on the hard drive or on a CD.
I'm sure this will probably be labeled Troll, but I really want to know the answer to this. I've thought about this a long time, and I haven't come up with an answer:
Why is it that people get upset at Gnu Public License violations, but think that downloading Music and Movies is OK? Shouldn't they either come down on one side or the other (GPL violations ok, music and movie downloading OK; vs GPL violations bad, music and movie downloading bad), but not both sides as seems so often the case?
Given that this guy has proven the VX30 components use ShoutCast code, doesn't that give AOL/TimeWarner and open door to sue these guys for GPL violations?
Fidel, you're such a tease; how are they going to convict you in a Cuban court, much less extract you from the Buena Vista Social Club?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Since the keyword is "gnu" and you mention "GPL", I suppose you're talking about the GNU GPL.
When you talk about the GNU GPL please refer to it as "GNU GPL" not just "GPL" unless it has been made clear that it is the "GNU GPL" that you refer to.
Man, his list is going to be HUGE.
"our boss did some more research, lurking on the community boards for free software. He was shocked by the attitude and venom caused when users noticed someone infringing the GPL. Most of the time the people who wrote the code weren't even involved in the discussion. He realised that if we made the slightest mistake under the terms of the GPL, even if it was only a perceived mistake, we'd have to spend the next 10 moonths dealing with these people."
So lemme get this straight: he actually _plans_ to break copyright law, and is shocked that people would not take to it kindly?
Would he prefer the way the BSA treats copyright violations with other software? Yeah, I don't think those would post flames on a board. They'd just show up for an audit and sue his pants off. Very professionally and without any flaming or venom involved.
Also it seems to me like there aren't many ways to make just "the slightest mistake" or "only a perceived mistake" under the GPL. Either you publish your own source code under GPL too, or you don't. I don't think it's possible to get flamed or "spend the next 10 months dealing with these people" if you did publish your code.
And if someone did post a bullshit thread, you just point them to the FTP or HTTP URL where they can get the code, and that's the end of it there and then. Hardly takes 10 months to cut and paste an URL.
It seems to me like all the flames I've seen so far on this subject were on stuff that was a _very_ clear case of GPL violation. I.e., people who hadn't released any code, and/or outright lied about using GPLed code at all. There's nothing "slight" or "perceived" about it.
So your boss's problem is...? Was he planning to be in that category, or? Lemme guess... He wanted to just "slightly", "mistakenly" forget to comply with the GPL, right? I.e., again, copyright law violation.
"Stop the hysteria, people. You're harming open source!"
I'm not even too pro-open source, yet I fail to see how this is harming anything. That it stops some people from breaking the license? I hardly consider _that_ to be any harm.
Look, as I've said before, I'm not even really pro-GPL, but like any other license it's a case of "take it or leave it". You get someone's code, there is a license to observe and a price to pay for it. In this case, the price is _your_ code. If you can't pay the price, don't use the product. It's that simple.
It's not even about GPL. I think the same about any other software and any other license. And especially for people making a living from software, I find it _lame_ when then they go and steal someone else's software. Whether it's by working with pirated copies of Visual Studio or breaking the GPL, I find it inherently abhorrent that someone would show so little respect for the very field they work in.
So again, the damage is...? That it caused someone to think twice about theft? I hardly think that stopping theft ammounts to causing harm.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
And if we're not but someone thinks we are?
Let me get this straight: you avoid using GPLed code because if you don't use GPLed code, somebody might think that you are, and you'd get bad publicity? That makes no sense whatsoever.
If someone claimed our heuristic optimisation software contained portions of GCC, what could we do?
What's stopping somebody from claiming that right now, without you having used GPL software?
You know, there's this thing called common sense. A lot of people have it. When somebody says "they are illegally using GPLed code", that common sense will expect a little something called proof.
If somebody claims you are using code that you aren't, the response to that is very simple - ask them to give evidence.
Perhaps i should be quiet i dont fancy another "Bya of Pgis" invasion by a bunch of angry Plagerists(MXS Are plagerists..)
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Well, that would explain why Robin's been in the shower all day muttering "won't come off... so dirty..."
Read my blog.
There are even more LGPL violations than GPL violations.
This is because people using LGPL falsely assume they don't have obligations if they merely link to the libraries.
LGPL Section 5 Paragraph 3 states that if you use material from the header files, your binaries become subject to LGPL even if your source files do not contain any LGPL code.
This means companies that link to c runtime libraries on Linux should be living up to LGPL requirements such as allowing modifications to the binaries, explicitely allowing reverse engineering, and so on.
That is what the Copyright Commandos are for. They are a special branch of the military.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Stealing code and claiming it's yours is quite different from downloading a song and listening to it.
By downloading the song and listening to it you are not claiming you wrote it, sang it, or even bought it.
Now, if you go out and sell said song at ANY price - there is the violation of the download.
Most people who feel filesharing of songs is ok - also feel as if it's promotion for the artist. I download rather infrequently - but MANY MANY of my friends buy music based on what they hear in my car and I also go to concerts and promote iTunes downloads on my website!
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
It's these companies that sneak around like weenie-waggers and wave their cartoonie lawyers instead when they get caught that get the flames.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
A shame you're posting as AC, but I suspect you had to in this case.
Interestingly, this is why I put my source out under the BSD licence, because I know that I quite often need (and use) equivilantly licenced source, two such examples are Henry Spencers' regex lib and the SQLite engine.... do onto others what you expect others to do onto you.
I thought libel/slander required knowingly making false statements about someone. If you have good reason to believe your statements are true, then it's not libel/slanderous. Can anyone comment on this?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
What's stopping somebody from claiming that right now, without you having used GPL software?
Nopthing at all. But there's no reason for them to consider that we might be. If we start releasing the source to some of our software, people will ask what we're hiding.
You know, there's this thing called common sense. A lot of people have it. When somebody says "they are illegally using GPLed code", that common sense will expect a little something called proof.
Common sense... Interesting. I'll suggest this to the braying mod of zealots who are screaming "release the source" to code they have no right to.
My real name can't be traced from my user name. I just find objecting to the GPL can cause a karma hit.
So what you call "harming OSS" is to make Mr. Corporate understand that if he messes with OSS licence he will be in trouble ?
It is pretty amusing to see (often) comments of that kind which basically state that OSS has to be used in closed software to reach another level of success. This is first grade bullshit.
--
Go Debian!
"Why would we need to use an FTP server? [...] If we used GPL code, we'd simply include the source on the hard drive or on a CD."
Then instead of posting the URL _if_ someone flames you about GPL, you post something like "The sources are in the 'sources' directory on the CD." Problem solved, and it didn't take 10 months.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I was the main analyst behind the application/binary analysis in the article - about 1/5 of the way down you'll see my first credit:
:)
"Ryan Thoryk (aka EventHorizon), a Unix and Network Specialist in Illinois, is the one who put all of the hard work into peeking around the original VX30 binaries"
Yay - finally my hard work is getting mindshare
-eventhorizon
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
You are assuming that the people that writes GPL code and defend it also illegaly downloads music and movies.
How can you support that?
4+ years
No compliance as of yet.
who knows how much money out of your pocket you spent.
your lawyers are "busy with lots of other cases"
it really sound sliek so far, he has won.
The problem with the GPL is not that it is unenforcable, but rather that nobdy has the time and or money to enforce it.
If anybody would like to get in contact with Maui X-Stream (to perform an interview for your own blog of course), they can be contacted in the following ways:
Maui X-Stream, Inc.
1068 Limahana Pl Suite #5
Lahaina Hi, USA 96761
Phone: 1 (808) 661-5699
Fax: 1 (808) 667-7002
Email: info@mxsinc.com
Or, if you'd prefer to get in touch with James Kartes directly...
James Kartes
42 Puu Hale St
Lahaina, HI 96761-1950
Phone: (808) 661-4014
Email: paradise@maui.net
Ahh ... Kinda reminds me of Bill Gates in the early days. Those were the good 'ole days.
bau bau chicka chicka mau mau
I've read this twice, and I really can't tell who is the bigger idiot: you or the legal consol your reference. Considering you believed them, I'm leaning towards the former.
Here's a tip to businesses trying to silence authors and journalists with legal threats: if you're going to make legal threats [i]personally[/i], and not actually have them sent by a lawyer, it makes it pretty clear that:
1. You're full of shit and have no intention of pursuing legal action, because if you really did, you would have run the situation past your attorney before sending the letter.
2. You're not even a decent businessman, because any businessman with a clue knows that legal matters are best left to attorneys.
In the same way you wouldn't expect the CEO of the offending company himself to defend his position, you can't expect the authors of the stolen software to go out trolling with droids.
The CEO puts a lawyer and doesn't get involved with the lower level trolling debates. It's fair that the software authors remains at the same high level. Otherwise they won't be taken seriously.
again, great article and all, but wouldn't it have been just quicker to list the open source projects that haven't been ripped off by MXS?
So what is so difficult about providing a 25c CD with the product? Every place I have worked with that use GPL software does that. Every device you buy from Taiwan/China has some disc in the packaging that the user has to throw away...
Oh well, what the hell...
Slashdot covering a news story? Weird.
Hey, at least it has been covered before, though, right?
How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
Quoth the article:A major problem here is that the various OSS projects aren't selling anything, which means it generally falls straight into the civil category, which means no one is going to be picking up the case on the taxpayer's tab, which means it's going to be on your tab.
I thought that if I wrote a bunch of OSS software and a company takes it and makes a profit of, say 10,000K that I must be getting some reasonable cut. Provided that that the PearPC people didn't get a dime, I would call this a monetary damage and claim that it is a criminal case. If the infringement breaches 5K, doesn't that make it a criminal case?
Hiding in the closet, wetting their pants? Drinkin' until oblivion comes? Buying a last-minute trip to Camerun while returning from the urgent plastic surgery treatment? None of these? Well, they should reconsider at least...
"If we start releasing the source to some of our software, people will ask what we're hiding."
Funny how noone asked SuSE or RealNetworks that, when RealPlayer got included on the same CD as the rest of SuSE's Linux distro.
Also for a long time WinCVS was a closed source front end to CVS, except there was a very clear separation between the closed source GUI and the command-line CVS which was supplied with all sources and copyright notice. Funny how noone flamed those.
"If we start releasing the source to some of our software, people will ask what we're hiding. "
Just like they asked IBM to provide the sources for AIX too when IBM provided stuff like Jikes and JFS with sources? Oh, wait, noone asked IBM to do that.
"Common sense... Interesting. I'll suggest this to the braying mod of zealots who are screaming "release the source" to code they have no right to."
Except I've never yet seen much "braying" when there wasn't an actual GPL violation. I.e., pay attention, it happened when they actually _did_ have a right to that code.
There is a very clear case when you can mix your own programs with GPL'ed stuff: when they are clearly distinct programs. E.g., since you mention GCC in another message, if you make a closed source IDE that just calls GCC as a separate program, but is clearly a distinct executable, you don't have to publish the sources to your own IDE. And I haven't seen much "braying" when that was the case.
What people seem to conveniently "mistake" it for is actually including GPL'ed code in their program and thinking they can then skip publishing their own files that went into building that program. Which, intentional or just through stupidity, _is_ a copyright violation. And it also means that then those "braying zealots" _do_ have a right to your code.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Your "food" for thought is poisonous, you dill-hole. First of all, most linux users steal nothing at all. There are many more versions of pirated windows in use than any "pirated" linux installations (because pirated linux doesn't really exist). In fact most software of any kind that is stolen is done so by windows users, and I don't blame them. After they pay for their hardware they are expected to go spend another $600 or so on software?!?!? That doesn't happen to the linux community.
Next, we have your xbox statement. I tell you why people want to do that (install linux on it) - it's just a cheap PC, NOT a "bitching gaming machine". Installing lnux on it let's you do a lot more with it. Period. EULAs are stupid, because they hope that you'll buy something then admit that you don't own it... which shouldn't happen. That's called renting, which the store never said I was doing. There is no way to review the idiotic EULA before buying, therefore it's a scam I won't be a victim of.
And your post is FUD we won't be victims of.
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
How about a statement like this:
-----
Most of our product is GPL and source is available [[here]]. However, these distinct components are not ours to release as GPL:
1) ExpensiveCommercialLibrary1 from [[ vendor website ]].
2) ExpensiveCommercialLibrary2 from [[ vendor website ]].
3) ExpensiveCommercialLibrary3 from [[ vendor website ]].
These components are made available to the program as add-in modules. The purchased binary already includes these components.
The GPL source made available [[ here ]] will compile and produce a runnable executable program. However, it will lack the functions currently provided by the commercial components listed above: foo1, foo2, foo3.
-----
There, all done. Takes some effort to ensure a modular system that your non-GPL code can plug into, but people do that all the time. (And of course someone may fork the code and deliver their own version of those commercial components and then directly compete with you later.)
Just be open about what is and isn't yours to distribute and the zealots will leave you alone. No "perception" of a problem, if you're open and honest about the process.
Still, it sounds to me like the manager in question was hoping to do something dirty. When you're taking an ethical business position you don't need to worry about the "perception" of wrongdoing.
I went and read the GPL. Now I'm confused about the following situation:
If I create a new program that links to a GPL'd encryption library and access that lib via it's API, can I sell this new program under a commercial non-GPL license?
Can I do this if I provide only the encry. lib source? Or by linking am I obligated to GPL the whole thing? Or is this verboten?
Oh, do it, pleez, pleez, pleeez, pleezz, pleeeeezzzzz. I'll contribute! I can type, I'll polish shoes, I'll make hectolitres of coffee, I'll drive your car, copy papers, cook your meal, cut your lawn, I'll do whatever you tell me to do. Just do it pliiz. This is a thing worth of dying for.
Your lawyers are idiots.
Again, all that is based on the bullshit premise that it's that easy to make "just a slight mistake" unintentionally.
I fail to see _how_ can something like, for example, CherryOS and spewing bullshit and lies for _months_ to avoid GPL count as a honest slight mistake. You mean, what? They really meant to post the sources, but purely accidentally, by honest mistake, they instead lied about it and claimed they hadn't even heard of PearPC?
And that's the whole point: in all cases it took several bullshit responses and outright lies from a company before the serious flaming began. You mean someone really meant to go post the sources in good faith, but instead accidentally posted lies and/or sicked their lawyers on somene?
How _does_ one make that kind of a "slight mistake" unintentionally? No, seriously, now you got me really curious.
In the meantime, no, I don't think that the whole "slight mistake" argument holds any water. In all the cases I've seen where any signifficant flaming happened, claiming it was an unplanned unintentional mistake is like claiming that you wanted to go to work but unintentionally accidentally robbed a bank and drove across state border instead. Honest unintentional mistake, really.
That's why I treated it as "planned" in that answer.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Oh, so your boss made sure to get rid of UNIX when SCO launched their copyright infringment claims against IBM then?
Of course this is a lot of venom involved when you get people out to screw us. It is real simple to comply: give thoce source to whoever you give binaries to. The easy way to handle this is to provide the binaries with the source, so just put all on the same disc or even give out two discs and you are done (ie foo is on disc 1 and foo source is on disc 2). Now if someone gives out foo to someone else, it thier responsibility to make sure they get the source.
If instead you make an offer to get the source, you pretty much need to hand it out to everyone that comes knocking.
You can also provide an ftp server but that is not necessary. But there are a number of companies that do nothing, and when you try to get the source as required, the companies try to brush you off.
To give a comparison, if you are gracious and loan out your basketball as a kid and then some bully refuses to give it back, you will rightfully be upset. In the future you will be very careful who you let use your ball.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
From the horse's (or, more appropriately, goat's) mouth
Well, in fact, gnu is more related to the antilopes...But nevermind..
And for non-US people this would mean...?
This wasn't exactly a huge leap in logic to figure out, much less rocket science.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Nothing. This is pretty much what we do. We supply the source where legally obliged to or where it would be more beneficial to do so than not to do so. We try to avoid dealing with people who demand things they're not entitled to.
I've asked this before, and I'll ask this again.
What are the implications in terms of GPL-virality if it can be shown that not only was GPL code *deliberately* incorporated into a company's product, but that such inclusion was sanctioned either implicitly or explicitly by senior figures within the company?
Put another way, if one rogue programmer inadvertantly (or even deliberately) includes GPL code, a reasonable judge will probably reject the GPL covering the whole product (although the violating code will have to be removed). If it is clear that this is a pattern across the company's products by many programmers, and chances are that management knew about it, then we have proof of an unwritten policy to include GPLed code.
Now, to me, this strongly suggests that those involved knew what they were doing and deliberately ignored the license. In such cases, would the whole code become GPL (excluding other companies' code included in the product and released under GPL-incompatible licenses)?
If they want to violate the GPL, fine.... so long as they have to (at least) pay the other side's legal bills when they lose, refund the customers who paid for code they were entitled to free, and have to release their entire application (*with* source code) under the GPL.
Oh, and to the parent poster. Hope you kept a record of that company and (at least) notified (or are intending to notify) someone in a position to do something about it.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I think my favorite part of the troll is:
Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system
That actually made me laugh out loud. Token ring is by far supported under Linux and even better, ext2 does not fragment.
Sounds like a losing situation. How can you justify the lost dollars? It isn't as if the court will give you compensation for your efforts.
That's not offtopic - that's actually funny, please mod accordingly.
No doubt if he had just made a standard Overlord or Soviet Russia joke he would be at +5 Funny by now. Which is a rather pathetic indictement of Slashdot groupthink.
Q: Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
So it's ok if I charge a million bucks to download the binary, and same (equivalent access) for the source? Doesn't the source have to be made available at no charge?
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
The GPL is a license under copyright law. What if, say, a motion picture production uses a piece of copyrighted in its sountrack? This analogy probably has precedents that are easier to find.
GPL isn't magic, and it isn't even particularly unique. It's a license backed by copyright law. Copyright law is strong enough to make certain producers' associations into quasi-governments, so I would hardly say it is a weak platform on which to seek damages.
All the hand-wringing over "GPL violations" seems a tad hypocritcal when coming from a community (e.g., the "Slashdot" crowd) that supports "free-as-in-beer" music piracy and chortles at Microsoft's tribulations with software pirates.
:
Right, let's see if we can't deal with this tired old shit once and for all.
Imagine 2 groups of Slashdot readers - A & B.
Group A supports music piracy
Group B is against GPL violations
While these 2 groups may coincide to some extent, they do not completely coincide. There are members of Group B that are not also members of Group A. Your statment does not allow this possibility. It is therefore retarded.
Second point - there is a difference between a)making an unauthorised copy of a CD and b) making an unauthorised copy of a CD, claiming that you produced it and then selling it on (i.e what Maui X-Stream are doing). Your statement makes no allowance for this possibility. It is therefore retarded on a second count.
Therefore I contend that you are
a) Retarded
b) Trolling
And as such, I suggest that you:
a) Seek remedial education
b) Go fuck yourself
Flamebait, eh? :)
Can you please point out where what I've said isn't true?
All about me
...should team up with the Phantom console chaps. They both provide with chuckles and laughs, but together they ought to be pure comedy gold!
Ah, I just love intelligent responses like this one. I'd ask for some intellectual honesty, but at least one of those elements is missing, I'm afraid.
All about me
You don't have to use *any* MS products to be hit up by the BSA. In fact if you aren't using any MS products (or seem to be buying far too few MS products for the size of business you run) you are more likely to be audited. All they have to do is claim that they got an "anonymous tip" and they can shut down your business for as long as it takes to go through all the computers looking for pirated software. Alternatively you can just buy X number of licenses and the BSA will leave you alone (for a while). It's a nice little racket.
This is beside the point anyway. What versions of Unix do you use that don't have license agreements?
looks like the site is dead, all gone, the link is to macemulation or something like that.
however, if this company has gone belly up, it likely did not spend muchc money actually developing Cherry-OS and its various products, and if the packages were selling for 10 000 a pop...
someone just got away with a fsck of a lot of money.
i say continue to persue the owner, and civially sue him for money.
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
Not happened yet.
If it does we'll have to look at the legal situation.
No. That would be silly and counter productive. Deciding not to invest in a new business area costs nothing. Replacing al our software would be expensive.
It was insulting but that doesn't preclude the fact that it was:
a) intelligent
b) refuted your post
Yes, what you describe is okay. In that case, probably nobody will buy your software, so you might not want to do that. Remember that the point of the GPL is to allow, not compel, third parties to distribute the software.
There is no requirement in GPL to give source at no charge.
Anyone know what backend he's running? I'm shopping around for good blog software right now.
OK, let's ignore the GPL thing completely... say I make a product which I put months/years/etc of work into. Now, if some people copy my product without permission for personal use I might be annoyed. If businesses start using it without permission I'd be more annoyed.
However, if somebody copies my program, removes my name from it, and claims that they made it without giving me any credit whatsoever, I'd be royally pissed off.
I'm don't really support movie/music downloading (neither do I support *AA political lobbying though), but the downloaders aren't taking the latest N-Sync CD and trying to resell it while claiming that they produced it under the band name "Synced Up"
Good luck with that. I'm sure MS will just roll over when someone tries to set a precident against their little BSA scam. Do you think they want *everyone* they hit up for licensing trying to sue them?
It should also be noted that the "GPL witch hunts" your boss is so afraid of have not happened either. As others have pointed out: The GPL is not a complicated license to abide by. Many, many businesses have used it with no issues. Ask your legal department for more info, they sound pretty cool.
Interesting how this article which does everything the infamous MoG article did is praised yet MoG gets slammed.
People's addresses and other personal contact information are being published. Oh the horror public information is being made public. Just shocking. This person should be banned.
Right, let's see if we can't deal with this tired old shit once and for all.
You may say that, but the general mood here is *always* pro GPL, anti-proprietary and pro digital freedoms. Sure, it may only be a minority who hold all views but they're very vocal and set the overall tone.
Can you please point out where what I've said isn't true?
That's not the point - by generalising everyone you invited flames back. And since you got one, how can you dispute this?
To answer your original point: because they want to have their cake and eat it.
What would you suggest then? Seems MS will invade whatever we do unless we use their software. Which wouldn't be practical.
Do you have any basis in fact that supports your claim that "The GPL sucks for businesses. That's why Stallman came up with it."?
Explain to me how the OpenOffice.org license sucks, but the Microsoft Word license doesn't? How does the Firefox license suck more for me than the IE license?
Would it be better or worse for businesses if Word was licensed with the GPL?
J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent. -- Alexandre Dumas
While these 2 groups may coincide to some extent, they do not completely coincide. There are members of Group B that are not also members of Group A.
And those 2 people thank you for pointing that out.
I'm not sure how this ties in with what I was saying. Actually, I wasn't considering damages; I was considering that, if someone at a company, with the implicit approval of their bosses, repeatedly includes GPLed code in their company's own app, with clear knowledge of what this (legally) entails and what they are doing, doesn't this imply they accept that their whole app is GPL?
BTW, I assume that if (say) a subcontractor of a subcontractor to company X inadvertantly included GPL code that was subsequently included in X's product, that a reasonable judge would not force the entire app to become GPL. He might require damages or payment, though.
I also assume that the same would apply to Linux, if "infringing" code (whatever the heck that would be) was found; the code should be removed (and replaced), but if the infringement wasn't intentional (or was the work of a one-off rogue developer), I would hope that damages (if any) and actions were limited, and taken in the light of a genuine mistake/oversight/betrayal.
This doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) apply to people intentionally, and systematically ripping off large chunks of code with full knowledge of what they are doing; regardless of what they are contributing to (see above!)
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Drunkenbatman has only made public information about these people's companies. Nothing about their personal lives that they themselves haven't published has been written. Drunkenbatman didn't talk to their landlord, take pictures of their house and car, talk to their mothers, slander their religious choices or...
oh, wait. IHBT. IHL. IHAND.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
First it's because you boss was trying to STEAL the GPL code. Every single time I hear of these stories or hear it from an executive, after talking you discover that they were going to try and pass off the program as their creation and as traditional closed source app.
I am very happy your boss was scared away, those venomous vipers that are GPL proponents that like to attack companies violating the GPL is the same effect that a "Beware of the DOG" sign does to the burgular.
It keeps thieves out of your stuff.
Good companies that are not trying to steal the code make lots of money from GPL software. Linksys makes a crapload off of their wireless routers, codeweavers makes a crapload off their crossover office app (I know of at least 25 copies that were purchased from them.) and simply searching on google will give you hundreds more honest companies using the GPL every day.
Your boss was obviousally wanting to run wild and loose with the GPL and that is why he canned it. If he were to make sure that the code was released ans easily found on the website (big farking button that says download sourcecode here is too difficult to make?) he would have had zero worries or cares about it.
Those that are frightened by the GPL are those that are trying to subvert the GPL.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The author notes the FBI is not concerned with GPL license violations because it does not reach a treshold of lost money... So what if a GPL'd software author put a big notice on his/her website that reads something like This software can be licensed under MIT-like software license in exchange for the payment of [put twice the FBI treshold here] ?
Remi Denis
But remember that GPL 3 will change this: as discused here.
>Linux is not user-friendly.
It _is_ user-friendly. It is not ignorant-friendly and idiot-friendly.
The formatting of this story just smacks of pre-written garbage. I googled for "specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support" and got the following two links:
/. in 2003.
Here is this same post being made on
Here is a reader's response on CNET to a story in 2004.
I would suggest growing some balls and realizing that the "risk" of using the GPL is about the same magnatude as the "risk" of using computers.
but doesn't that mean I can take someone else's GPL'd code, use it in my own stuff, and then refuse to disclose the source for less than a million bucks? If it's a server side application, I'm not really interested in selling the code anyways, just using it.
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
I bought my X-Box used.
I have never seen this mysterious "EULA" you speak of, or signed it.
Bill Gates can suck my left nut.
(UUUUUUUUUGH... That visual didn't work...)
OK, perhaps one of Bills 20-something secretaries...
My understanding of the GPL FAQ was that if the software was dependent upon the library to run, then yes your new portion is GPL'd as well.
Of course I'm not a lawyer, but from the GPL FAQ:-
I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this?
You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.
A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.
However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.
The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.
If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.
He realised that if we made the slightest mistake under the terms of the GPL, even if it was only a perceived mistake, we'd have to spend the next 10 moonths dealing with these people. He canned the project immediately.
Hogwash. Own up to any problems, fix them and appologise. SGI's open letter is a perfect example of how to do things right. They never denied the problem, they quickly worked to verify the extent of the problem, the quickly fixed the problem, and they readily admitted that they were responsible.
Maui X-Stream had done nothing but deny and lie in the face of overwhelming evidence. They could have solved these problems months ago by either ceasing distribution or negotiating a license for the GPL code. Fools like this, who immediately discount the collective voice of free software developers, are getting what they deserve. If you steal GPL code then have the audacity to send out Cease and Desist letters, what exactly are you expecting the response to be?
The "risk" is dealing with hundreds of petty brats who think they're experts on the law, and think we've harmed them personally. Maybe we're overestimating it. Doesn't matter. Looks like we were scared off.
Most companies prefer to make a profit than proving their manliness.
If everyone started having to pay for it, the use would automatically drop. Small resellers would stop putting one copy on fifty machines, and actually start looking at the price.
There's a reason MS has taken this long to go after illegal copies...any copies help it more than no copies do. Even if they don't get paid, they set standards with them. It's better to have 90% of the market with half that legal (Which is close to what it is now, if you include Asia.) than 60% of the market with them all legal.
Recently? Well, at this point, though, MS has saturated the market, and thus the only people it can sell to are people who already have a copy, thus the recent talk about tightening updates for illegal copies. It's the final nail in the coffin.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
First it's because you boss was trying to STEAL the GPL code. Every single time I hear of these stories or hear it from an executive, after talking you discover that they were going to try and pass off the program as their creation and as traditional closed source app.
That's a serious allegation. Also false. Also it would be pointless. We make no money from software sales.
Only support and occasionally hardware.
Your boss was obviousally wanting to run wild and loose with the GPL and that is why he canned it. If he were to make sure that the code was released ans easily found on the website (big farking button that says download sourcecode here is too difficult to make?) he would have had zero worries or cares about it.
Yes, because the only people who could possibly have reservations about the GPL want to breach it.
We had no intention of doing this. We were simply concerned that people would accuse us of breaching the GPL when we hadn't.
You know.
A bit like what you're doing.
And what if they had investigated and found no violations? Would the community have approved and apologised for the false accusation?
I have seen no evidence that Maui X-Stream is being distributed without source. People are just assuming it is. Any suggestion that it is could therefore be actionable if it turns out to be false.
The real analysis of CherryOS and VX30 is on Tliquest. The "drunkenblog" guy just took excerpts from there.
What's so wierd about the VX30 mess is that they've apparently developed a reasonably decent video player written in Java. (It's not "playerless"; the player is a Java applet.) Which anyone can download. "VX30" is just the encoder.
The player is at "http://movies.mxsinc.com/NewHome/vxmPlayer.jar".
Look, this is a great article. But why is it ok to post personal details that have no bearing on the story? C'mon. The guys wife? Her maiden name? Her religion? All the various addresses?
t m
How is this different than what Maureen O'Gara did?
PS: I thought LinuxBusinessWhatever said they removed all O'Garas stuff? I found them easily today on google: http://linuxbusinessnews.sys-con.com/read/49228.h
OK, let's now talk about the "GPL community" for a bit. Sure, making wise-cracks about "braying zealots" is fun, but misses the point by a mile. There are a thousand ways to defuse a PR disaster _if_ you did nothing wrong. However what invariably happened in these cases was that the company itself was the one who acted like an asshole and fanned the flames.
As pointed above, there are ways to make your case in an intelligent manner. But what they did was send inflamatory bullshit and inflamatory canned lawyers' letters, instead of addressing the real issues. _How_ was that supposed to defuse the problem?
It seems to me like it's just a case of: they act like assholes, you get flamed like assholes. It's that simple. If you flame and do some lame attempt to intimidate that community, you get flamed in return. That's all there is to it.
It doesn't even have to do with GPL. I can think of many non-GPL-related cases -- like Indrema being called vapourware by HardOCP -- where _if_ they really were in the right, they could have handled it as such. But no, they send some vague legal threats instead and consistently refuse to address the real case. In fact, even their legal threats are vague enough when it comes to the real case.
_How_ is it the community's or the "braying zealot's" fault, then?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If you use GPL code, admit it, and release it.
And if we're not but someone thinks we are?
This is a problem irrelevant to the license of what you are using.
We also want to follow the intent of all our other licences, some of which are incompatible.
Well if you have a license conflict you have to solve it no matter what the license is.
These are not GPL problems, they're just typical legal issues that you have to deal with.
And what if they had investigated and found no violations?
This is simple enough to prove. Allow members of the free software projects in question to review the source under a reasonable NDA.
I have seen no evidence that Maui X-Stream is being distributed without source.
That's not even the point. GPL code can't be included in a !GPL binary, regardless of whether or not source is made available.
You are required to distribute to any third party, and the offer to do so must be valid for three years.
If you want an example of where GPL is better than BSD, compare the Linux kernel to the FreeBSD kernel. Tons of companies contribute to the Linux kernel because they can't just take it and run off because of the GPL. By contrast, companies take the FreeBSD kernel and can easily not contribute squat... anything they do contribute, they're doing so 100% voluntarily.
So does it come as any surprise that Linux moves so much faster than FreeBSD, and that since 2.2 Linux has been leaving FreeBSD in the dust?
Ahhh no.
... .. because most corporate development is purely in-house, there is no distribution and no requirement to return/publish/make-available the derivative source and/or alterations.
GPL is fine for most corporate development
It's pure win/win.
And that's why *lot's* of corporates have no problem with the GPL
Case in point: I recently asked our global architects if they had a policy on OSS usage, and could I use a couple of Apache licensed java classes in a key development. They came back and told me they were perfectly comfortable with that, and also gratuitiously said that GPL, BSD and the Perl Artistic licence were also ok.
Fact:- most development is in-house and *never* distributed, so nearly every OSS licence is perfectly acceptable.
I don't recall the GPL saying you had to /give/ it to world+dog.
You only have to make an offer of source code to those you distribute your changes to. See section 3 b of the GPL.
Granted that you have to respond to requests for the source code from third parties, but you don't have to generally publish the offer or send modified code until requested.
Fidel, you're such a tease; how are they going to convict you in a Cuban court, much less extract you from the Buena Vista Social Club?
We'll just declare him to have been arrested under the PATRIOT Act and shipped to Cuba.
I should have said software business.
Stallman clearly states that software developers should not get paid anymore than a gas station clerk.
We prefer to say nothing, not get involved and simply rely on the fact that there's not the slightest reason to suspect we use GPL code.
It may be overly paranoid, but some companies think you can't be too careful.
And why is Apache doing so well?
Why in BSD used in OS X?
One example does not make it true.
Anyone posting before noon didn't RTFA =P
No comment.
LOL.
Do you work for the Microsoft PR department or something?
I Want to discuss the concept of property ownership with you. It's usually pretty simple, but you seem to not grasp it fully.
When I purchase something (Windows XP, XBox, PS2, lumber, or a drill), I am now the owner of that piece of property. It is now mine to use in whatever manner I see fit. I can break it, hack it, stick it under a blow torch, make it run linux, make it run Amiga OS if I want. Stick it in my Microwave, use it for ammunition in my trebuchet, decompile it, or feed it to my fish.
The only thing that I cannot legally do is a) use it in the commission of a crime (because its a crime, you know)or b)sell it as an unadulterated product.
Now, lets cover what valid crimes are...
1.reverse engineering for commercial purposes
2.altering the product to get other, related products or services for free
3.engaging in other criminal mischief based on my alteration of the product.
4. Publishing decompiled source code of a closed source product.
That means that if I, as an individual choose to take the fonts from my personal, legal copy of Windows, and use them in my personal, non-commercial, dual booting linux desktop, MS has no recourse against me.
If I write instructions for other people with legitimately licensed copies of Windows to do the same on their personal machines, MS has no recourse against me.
I am liable for damages ONLY if I use or encourage use of this process in a commercial setting, or do so without a properly licensed copy of Windows.
Corporate law is stickier than personal property law, but personal property law is VERY clear. No seller can limit use of something sold to a private citizen for private use except as a limitation of liability in the result of injury, or the commission of a crime.
That means that Sony and MS cannot dictate the uses to which I put my XBOX or PS2 once I have purchased them. They can, and routinely do, void the warranties and ban machines from online play when changes are detected, but that is the absolute limit of their recourse in these matters.
It doesn't matter that you don't understand WHY I want to do it, or how. It doesn't matter if your product was not intended for that purpose, or even if it's dangerous. If I were to overclock my xbox to the point that the CPU was hot enough to cause localized fusion that immolated me and my house, MS could not then sue my estate for violation of the EULA, and neither could my estate turn and sue MS for 'allowing' me to use their product in such a manner... well, I suppose my estate could try, but they would lose - and rightly so... I would then, of course, be obliged to return and haunt the executor of my estate for being such a knob.
And just to make sure we're clear, unless the folks running the OSS projects for XBOX and PSX are encouraging you to hack boxes you don't own, or to use the products to steal additional services, they're safe too. They are publishing instructions for how to void the warranty on a properly and legally owned unit.
The EULA's you talk about are completely unenforceable. These kinds of questions are not in the neighborhood of copying my DVD's - there is no duplication of functionality or media - no real potential for abuse by redistribution for a company to hide behind. This is purely a question of ownership rights, and the definition of property/purchase. No court, not even our backwards, hyper protectionist ones would ever back such a fundamental change in the laws of ownership.
If they did, rest assured that even Congress would sit up and take notice when rednecks and geeks everywhere found out they were no longer able to use their lawnmower engines for go-karts and motorized barstools because limitations put in place by Briggs and Stratton to strengthen their Go-Kart motor business.
Which brings us to your definition of theft....
It's an interesting definition..well, no I guess it isn't... you
In their view, they're not hurting anyone.
No, they are not. However, they break the law, and since "they" (corporations, MPAA, whatever) sue "us" (little people, programmers, students) with the law stick while we are not really hurting anyone, we will also take the opportunity to use the law stick and beat them with it to death given the opportunity. Because if "they" can believe that the law makes sense and is worth defending, so can "we".
The GPL is just a work of GENIUS. All we have to do is feed it with some giveaway code and the capitalist world will hang itself with it, using their own laws, because they are all greedy and looking up coding snippets on Google is faster than coding it themselves. GENIUS!
I do not understand: under what authority?
A private organisations (surely) can not just walk into your office and pulling computers apart. To get a court to authorise them would require some real evidence. I assume corporate license agreements sometimes give them authority to condust audits, so you just never sign something like that.
IANAL so please explain to me how the BSA works.
This is simple enough to prove. Allow members of the free software projects in question to review the source under a reasonable NDA.
And if they refuse, or if they breach the terms of the NDA? We'll be held liable. Besides, if we avoid this sort of problem, then we don't have to bother with this. And to be honest, none of us are all that happy about sending our source off site.
he Open source idea was not expected to be a big money spinner. We saw that there were a few tools that could be combined with our exisitng tools, or otherwise modified and we could reduce our overheads. It was decided that it wasn't worth the hassle.
That's not even the point. GPL code can't be included in a !GPL binary, regardless of whether or not source is made available.
Do you have a copy of the binary? Can you be sure that it's not GPL?
Nice PR work.
I agree with the lumpster, the only people afraid of the GPL are those that are intending to break it's rules or skirt the edge of those rules.
Everything I have read from yuor posts screams this. You guys were intending to do something with GPL code that might be construed as not legit.
If your intention was to take GPL code, make it work with your product and release that code and YOUR CODE to your customers and the world then there would have been nothing to fear what-so-ever. not even the frothing at the mouth lunatics could even do anything.
So, your "reservations" obviousally had a hidden adgenda or your "plans" were of a nature that grated against the GPL and what you "saw" on those message boards.
BTW, everyone here knows that your "boss" did not do this, and that you are the "boss". it's obvious to most everyone here.
Your concerns are unrealistic and are consistent with those of a company that is intending to do something against the GPL with GPL code.
I'm betting you guys went ahead anyways and "modified" it so that it can not be detected, BTW, did you fire all your programmers that ever touched or looked at GPL code? I hope your bubble sort or B-tree does not resemble anything like in GPL software.
Anyways, I'm simply echoing almost every reply to you.... we can tell you were up to no good... even if it was mimial.
His blog is hosted on EV1Servers.net. I refuse connections to their network on my firewall so I can't read the article.
It always amazes me when Linux supporters are hosted with that provider...
1) You may be behind a proxy server which doesn't like port 8090
:-)
2) Coral cache is sensitive to the lifetime of pages as reported by the original webserver and the also size of the page.
If a page indicates it's non-cachable, coral cache will just forward the request. If a document is too small (1M IIRC?) it will also just forward the request
Forwarding the request to a slashdotted webserver doesn't do much, as you might expect!
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
The courts may make them pay monetary damages, and may force them to comply with the GPL, but there are two ways to comply with the GPL: distribute source to your modifications also under the GPL, or don't distribute at all. The company would probably still have the choice between discontinuing their distribution of the GPL code or releasing their modifications. I don't think anyone can limit them to the option of releasing under the GPL.
Everything I have read from yuor posts screams this. You guys were intending to do something with GPL code that might be construed as not legit.
YES! Exactly! That's precicely the problem. We wanted to do something with GPL code that might be construed as non legit.
Whether it's legit or not isn't the point. The point is that people may believe it isn't.
If your intention was to take GPL code, make it work with your product and release that code and YOUR CODE to your customers and the world then there would have been nothing to fear what-so-ever. not even the frothing at the mouth lunatics could even do anything.
We have code that we can't release to the public. Some of it is silmilar in functionality to GPL code. Here's what we would have;
1. Applications that we wrote with third party code. These are closed source and contain certain features.
2. Applications that are open source with some GPL code thrown in. These are open source, and we would supply all source code.
3. GPL applications, either as is or modified. These would supply all source code with these.
Now, the worry was that someone would come along. See that some of the applications of category 1 were similar to those of category 2. They'd post a bitchy sotry about us, it would get picked up by various forums, and then we have to deal with thousands of hostile emails from some over zealous open source enthusiasts.
Alternatively, we scrap category 2, and there will be no similarity.
Possibly too paranoid, but the cost of doing nothing is nothing. The cost of dealing with countless hostile open source enthusiasts and loss of face amongst the tech community - I suspect that 99% of our customers read slashdot - is an unknown quantity. Bean counters really don't like those.
Even by mentioning it, dozens of people have immediately assumed that we wanted to steal the code. My explanation that that is not the case and would be pointless was dismissed. I've explained this. People are still accusing us of foul intentions.
They are also doing the same thing with Sony Play station as well.
http://playstation2-linux.com/faq.php
None of this is going to hold up in a court of law and the Linux
people who are leading these projects are looking for some serious
trouble should Microsoft and Sony decide to pursue this matter.
Yep, Sony's bound to come down on the people behind the PS2-linux kit like a ton of bricks. And who are these linux-loving commie miscreants?
erm, looks like it's Sony themselves.
you silly, silly man.
This is a problem irrelevant to the license of what you are using.
How many people are going to get upset if they think I've stolen a company's source code? the company might. But that's not a problem since we can deal with their licence validation guys quite easily. It's a known problem. Both parties usually want to solve it amicably.
Who do we talk to to resolve a GPL dispute? Perhaps the FSF. But while we're dealing with that, we have to deal with dozens of open source fans demanding the source - sometimes even if we have no obligation to provide it. These people are not legal experts and some of them are mistaken about the scope of the GPL.
Well if you have a license conflict you have to solve it no matter what the license is.
The GPL is about the only licence I know of that effectively bars its use with other licences. But this is not about conflicts. It's about proving we're playing legitimately. It may not be possible to prove it in a satisfactory manner to the community.
These are not GPL problems, they're just typical legal issues that you have to deal with.
It's actually a potential PR problem we're worrried about.
Uh... the company have *already* 'released' the modified code. In the situation described (everyone aware and approving of what was going on), they can't realistically claim that they didn't read the license.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
You mean... slashdot?
Sourceforge?
I was just wondering what you meant by that.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Every time someone posts a GPL-violation story here, there's always an AC making this same comment with almost exactly the same wording, despite the fact that every time he makes it a bunch of people (1) point out that they are pro-GPL but don't engage in or promote violating music or video copyrights, (2) explain why there are legitimate reasons to oppose DRM that have nothing to do with the inconvenience it adds to playing illicitly acquired media, and (3) point to examples of successful online vendors that shun DRM... so even if the AC hasn't always read the followups he'd have to be deliberately remaining ignorant to miss them all.
I wonder whether he's being paid by Microsoft or the RIAA.
Luxriousity Software
They offer Photoshop, Office, and Sound editor work-alikes for Windows and Mac.
Give you three guesses what you actually get for you $29.99...
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Those acronyms are retarded. You have 20 seconds, might as well type it out.
Or are you still hunt-and-peck?
This simply isn't true. Neither Microsoft nor the BSA has any legal authority to enter anyone's place of business or home in the absence of either a court order or the owner's permission to do so. The necessary permission could be granted at the time, or it could have been granted at an earlier time when a license agreement was signed. When the BSA conducts a raid (and they aren't just being allowed to tag along with real police) the only authority on which they have to rely is a prior valid agreement with the owner. If they try to enter your premises without either your permission or a court order, they are trespassing. You can refuse them entry or throw them out if they get inside, and you can use necessary and appropriate force to do so. (Details of that will vary with your jurisdiction.)
Even if they DO have a right to audit you, by virtue of a license agreement, they cannot force their way in. Remember, these aren't the police. All they've got is a contract. If you refuse them entry, at worst you're in breach of contract. If they want to do anything about it, they'll have to go to court. They may be able to get a court order, in which case you risk prosecution for contempt of court if you refuse. In an extreme case, they may persuade the court to order the sheriff to provide access for them by force if necessary. They may also be able to sue you for damages and win, though it isn't clear what sort of damages they can get. In general I would guess that they could get very little by way statute or equity, but that some contracts may impose significant penalties for breach.
There have been incidents reported of BSA clowns conducting raids as if they had a right to force entry, but in most of the cases I have heard about, they were acting beyond their legal rights and succeeded in intimidating people who didn't know their legal rights.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Unfortunately, this isn't always true. The claim of the proprietary software companies is that what they are offering is a license. They are not selling you their software. You purchase the physical medium outright; you can do anything you like with the CD: use it as a coaster, resell it (without the software), use it for target practice. But you do not become the owner of the software anymore than you become the owner (that is, copyright holder) of the text of a book by virtue of purchasing the physical book.
I'm an advocate of FOSS myself and have no love for Microsoft, SCO, or their ilk, but you won't get anywhere in dealing with the problems they cause if you don't understand the legal situation.
By the way, GP looks familiar. I think I've seen this nonsensical piece here already, more than once. I think some troll (or group of trolls) post the same thing from time to time. Maybe somebody should post it together with an analysis so that people could just link to that rather than having to spend time on a new refutations each time.
The same people who download music off the internet by the assload are precisely NOT the same people who care about the GPL and spend hours trying to prove MXS is a violator, etc.
Those people go to cdbaby.com, legally record live shows of local bands and search for "really-free" free music.
I know it's really easy to just cram every post you see on slashdot that isn't your from your friend or yourself into some representation of a geek living in his parent's basement with no morals and bad acne.
But Scott, they're individuals... just like you.
Group hug!
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
You just happened to stumble on ryan's finding independantly.
The "drunkenblog guy" and eventhorizon (ryan) are collaborators.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I Want to discuss the concept of property ownership with you. It's usually pretty simple, but you seem to not grasp it fully. When I purchase something (Windows XP, XBox, PS2, lumber, or a drill), I am now the owner of that piece of property. It is now mine to use in whatever manner I see fit. I can break it, hack it, stick it under a blow torch, make it run linux, make it run Amiga OS if I want. Stick it in my Microwave, use it for ammunition in my trebuchet, decompile it, or feed it to my fish.
You seem not to understand the concept of licensing. When you purchase WinXP you are not buying the code, you do not own the code, you are simply licensing it. If you do not agree to the terms of the license (which may or may not allow you to use it for ammunition in your trebuchet) then you cannot use the product.
"In short, feel free to do whatever you want with GPL'd code in house, just be sure you're ready to give all those changes back to the community if you decide to sell the product you made with it."
If members of a company use the modified GPLed software at work, are they required to have access to the source code? If so, can they take the code home and distribute it on the web against the wishes of the company? I think the answer to the 1st is yes, but not sure about the second.
Vote for Pedro
IANAL
Basically, a company can't be sued for not accepting the terms of the GPL, since they don't have to accept them. However, the GPL grants them certain distribution rights that copyright law would normally prohibit; therefore, if a company does not comply with the GPL but redistributes the code anyway, it's a violation of copyright, with (probably steep) monetary punishment.
Forcing a company to accept a license is not a punishment the courts would hand down, but would probably be on the table as far as private settlement goes. They would most certainly be barred from further redistribution pending a settlement/trial, though, which is what I think the grandparent meant. Basically if a company (or contractors, sub-contractors, etc.) includes GPL'ed code in a project they'd face monetary damages and would have to stop distributing the code until they rewrite the GPL'ed code or comply with the GPL.
This is pretty much the same issue a company would face if they incorporated, say, some of the Windows source into their project, except without the option to GPL their code.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
We can argue about which is "more free", but keep this distinction in mind: the BSD license frees other programmers; the GPL license frees the code.
Personally, I care more for my code than for Micros**t's (or any other company's) coders, so I use the GPL to release free software. However that doesn't make someone who releases under the BSD license a fool. Use the license that matches your attitude.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
See this article http://starbulletin.com/2005/05/10/news/index4.htm l for Arben's spin on why they gave up on CherryOS and why the source was not released. They people have no shame. Now we can only hope VX30 gets the same scrutiny.
Okay; I see what you're getting at now.
;)
/. trick of hypothetical arguments about the "law", but when it comes down to it, the "law" is what courts rule, not what *we* say...
I guess the bottom line is we'd have to see how this would wash in a court of law; as IANAL and YANAL either
It does assume that the company didn't implicitly accept the GPL when they knowingly redistributed the code though. However it plays in court, consider this:-
I take a GPL program, make some changes and redistribute it. Others start working on and redistributing the code as if it were GPLed. Later on, I say, "Hang on, I didn't accept the GPL, so you can't do that with the code."
Hmmm. It might make a difference whether the GPL notice was removed or not. If the notice was removed, I'd hope the violator had their ass sued off, but that's not really my point.
One thing about your Windows example though; there isn't a license that comes 'with' Windows by default that allows you to modify and redistribute the code; there *is* with GPLed code. So, the Windows case is "you did something illegal regardless, you can't do that with the code."
OTOH, you have the option of accepting the GPL when redistributing. I *suspect* (again, IANAL) that distributing the offending software commercially, without source or acknowledgement would not constitute acceptance of the GPL, whereas making changes to GPLed code and including the license with it almost certainly would.
Problem is, we are doing the old
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Actually, it goes beyond Art Snobs.
I'm not a real fan of 'giclee' as a term, but those of us who are serious about photography, but have moved to a digital workflow, do have a bit of an issue.
Nobody is going to take "inkjet print" seriously, yet it's evolved to a level where it *is* a serious medium.
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
The answer to both is: No.
The basic assumption is the organization is a single-entity, and therefor already has full access and rights to the source, and binaries and any changes.
So no, your boss does not have to hand over source code just because they modified it. The I.T. department can't keep it to itself.
"can't" should be can; sorry for the confusion.
(waiting 2 minutes to post a correction really sucks, this is slashdot, 2000 people could be swearing at me for the mistake by now).
The SCO thing is amusing because they took on IBM. Well IBM has money, a whole lot of money. They also have an excellent legal team with an excellent understanding of IP law, after all they were involved in some of the orignal test cases. Also, they have a mentality of not bending ot threats.
So SCO basically picked on an unbeatable opponent. You don't go against IBM and hope to win by threats or stalling or using up their money, they won't bend to that and they are richer than you. The only way to win against IBM is to be in the right, and be willing to endure a big fight to prove it.
However that's not the case with these people. They aren't rich, so it's entirely possible a lawsuit could be used to grind them in to the ground, even if the suit is 100% in the wrong.
I'll bet anyone a few lattes that it is none other than MediaFrame.
... they are the kings of viral marketing ... MXS probably promised them the encoder/distribution side.
Why?
If you go to their website they claim that "MediaFrame for Mpeg-4 is set for a full release in the new year".
They also dual license the product, with partners getting access to this as-yet-unreleased stuff.
XviD, which is detected in the encoder, creates an MPEG4-compatible video stream... MediaFrame has yet-unreleased support for MPEG4 decoding in pure java.... but isn't ready to release it yet... hmmmmmmmmm
It's feature set is also eerily similar to VX30:
- Supports DRM
- Supports client usage tracking.
- Supports bandwidth detection and delivers media accordingly
DrunkenBatman paints a picture where Airlock (MediaFrame) is all gaa-gaa about this pure-java client solution, and just so happens to like MediaFrame and VX30, and PANS absolutely everything else.
I bet it was ALL AIRLOCK'S IDEA to market MediaFrames more advanced product line through the VX30 brand
Just a WILD THEORY...
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
While I appreciate the sentiment, it would be just lovely if you could run that through a spellchecker before you go out and misrepresent the rest of us as a bunch of primary school dropouts...
I wondered about this claim, if somebody downlaods a software, and useses it, but has one of those warnings... how is that supposed to be enforced? It's like those sites "if you are not 18 years or older you must leave..." people won't just leave, it is not really an enforcable statement.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Sigh.... Do you research anything for yourself or just accept what you read on some anti-OSS site?
"Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can."
Selling Software http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Odd, at first I read the second sentence as referring to "my client's sad pink elephant".
That's pro bono work. Since it's free, the lawyer does it at their leasure. That means that if things drag on for too long, and it starts taking up too much of the lawyer's time they can say "Sorry, I really like helping you, but this is just costing me too much, you need to find someone else."
I propose that we coin a new term for obsessive investigative reporting that heavily uses the internet: "to go DrunkenBatman on someone" :)
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
If you also distribute binaries, that is not okay unless you also sell the binaries for a million bucks (according to the FSF). This situation is effectively equivalent to not distributing anything at all.
Did anyone else notice the chain of companies and how the money flows between them all? It sounds a lot like the Canopy, et al. Looking at the connections between McBride and others during the SCO saga has revealed similar almost incestuous relationships between companies (many of which appear to be just shells for passing money around).
I should add -
It's not that I don't agree with you, it's just that people don't like to hear it. Of course, in saying that I'm setting myself apart from the masses so maybe I'm just as much in-denial myself.
Slashdot is, in many regards, a forum of idiots. But there are enough gems too to keep me coming back: you just have to trawl through the ill-informed, rabid twaddle to find them. The 'friends' system helps a bit.
I'm reading this at -1 nested, and I care to comment.
Respect does breed respect.
Money does not. **AA does not. A high paying job that you quit does not. Your current job does not. I'm not trying ad hominem arguments, but it's irony that these words should come from someone who doesn't care himself.
If you want stuff that's meant to be paid for, PAY. Or kill your cravings.
If you want your music, PAY. Else don't listen.
If you want your code, respect the licence. Else stay away.
If you want a better society that respects the GPL, you need to respect other people's rights as well.
Charity begins at home.
Copying is copying, certain types like plagiarism and copyright infringement are wrong, but it is NOT theft legally or philosophically.
A. Stealing is stealing, but copying ANYTHING as wrong as it is is legally NOT theft, and it has been philosophically argued succesfully that the two acts are notequals, despite how wrong they are. B. So arguing anything other than you position is rationalizaing something? Just saying copyright infringement isn't theft does not mean that the person arguing this nessecarily believes that the crime is o.k.
No, it's tresspassing.
No, it's still the crime (I stated it's a crime, happy?) of copyright infringement/piracy.
So arguing anything other than you position is rationalizaing something even when you say it's o.k? Wait, you position is the only one you will listen to, so you make this argument hoping to end possible debate over it before it starts? I think you should grow up.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
I keep trying to find a shor way to explain this, and it just seems impossible, but here we go again. 1a: When I purchase an XBox, I do not purchase license for it's use. I purchase two things: 1. the hardware in question. 2. the software in question to the extent that the copy in question is mine to use or destroy as I see fit within the boundaries of the law. The licensing you refer to has NEVER been legally validated. It is a wholly unexplored area of contract law and most disinterested legal opinions hold that huge parts of it could not stand up to a legal test in court. The weakest plank of the license is that it is unlawful in these United States to alter the terms of a contract without mutual consent once that contract has been signed. An agreement for sale is legally considered a contract once payment has occurred. It is, by design, impossible, or at least places unreasonable burden on the purchaser, to discern the exact terms of use on shrinkwrapped software before purchase. In order to determine the exact terms, it is necessary to install the software. If, at that time, you find the license too odious, it is impossible elect out of the contract (return the software) since opened software may not be returned. There are other legal weaknesses, including strong legal precedent preventing sellers from artificially restricting the uses to which a product may be put. There is strong case law stating that this can ONLY be done to facilitate reasonable limitation of liability... (EG hot coffee, do not use this lawnmower engine to power your electric shaver, this forklift is only rated for 4000lbs, donot expect it to function correctly ater lifting 8000). Limitations beyond that are historically unenforceable in criminal or civil arenas. That, I guess, is the crux of my argument. While I do not 'own' the code, I do own that copy of the 'application' in question, and as a result, a private citizen may do whatever he chooses with that copy of the 'application' except where he violates a different legal stricture. Again, to be clear, publication and distribution trespass on the rights of the copyright holder. Representing a modified application as either wholly your own work, or the unadulterated work of the publisher are both equally unlawful, as is the distribution of the modified application without prior consent of the publisher. None.. and I'll repeat that again, none of these traps are triggered by my modding my xbox to run linux. If I were to then use the running linux kernel to get free xbox live, THEN MS would have grounds to seek damages - but they could seek them for misuse of xbox live, NOT because I hacked my xbox in the first place. The same is true with Windows... as long as I dont exceed the number of copies installed that I have licensed, Microsoft may not - according to curent legal precedent - limit my use or abuse of those installed copies unless I (as a private citizen) violate some OTHER law in the process. While you may choose to disagree, I still assert thay my undertanding of the legal issues involved is quite good. I am arguing, quite simply, that the clauses you refer to in their licenses violate current law as defined by precedent. Neither of us will technically be 'right' until such cases are taken through the courts (probably several times). Since the expense involved such litigation is prohibitive for the end user, and danger of a negative precedent is very real for the publishers (not to mention bad PR for going after Joe User), I doubt we'll be seeing such a battle in the courts in the near future.
Isn't freedom a good thing? Isn't volunteering 100% to do something better than being "forced" to?
... and then they built the supercollider.
From the publish.com article:
Kartes went on to attack the company's critics. Doesn't this all boil down to open-source people thinking they have the right to break laws by violating patent rights, but when developers use legal code, open-source people think they have the right to make their own laws. I've never quite understood this concept of open source and exactly where it came from," he said.
Evidently not.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like