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."
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
You are assuming that the people that writes GPL code and defend it also illegaly downloads music and movies.
How can you support that?
perhaps they are not the same persons!
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
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
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"
...except for the part where it grants less freedoms, such as: the freedom for a commercial entity to take your code and modify it, sell it, and not contribute any useful additions to the code back to the community who will benefit from them...
When you talk about Freedom, the BSD license is always going to come out second to the GPL (and even third to the LGPL) because it allows (and in most cases, encourages) abuse without any penalty. Most companies are scared of the GPL (and as well they should be) because they know it has teeth.
Use whatever works, I personally will NEVER use the BSD license in any projects I distribute to the public because it has too many restrictions that I don't like (as above).