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."

Comments

Its not such a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

As a consultant for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.

Although we met several technical challenges along the way
(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.

So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
now be available at no cost to our competitors.

Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.

I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
it remains only a bit player.

Thank you for your time.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[sp3tt]

Sir, to put it lightly: YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.

That lawyer set you up. There is no such thing in The GNU General PUBLIC License. If you change the product AND distribute the changes, you have to make it GPL or a compatible license.

Tools compiled with gcc have to be GPL'd? Who the fuck told you that? The boss of Microsoft's FUD department?

Get some facts.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT. YHNL. HAND.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[Laurentiu]

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.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[McGruff]

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.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[justforaday]

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.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[justforaday]

ermm, change the word "sell" to "distribute" up there...

Re:Its not such a big deal

[willgott]

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.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[dfghjk]

he doesn't have to give changes to the community, only to the clients he distributes to. Selling has nothing to do with it.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

However, there are always new folks reading who may not know this, and it's good to provide the correct information for their sake.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[maxwell demon]

Maybe you should have gotten better lawyers ;-)

Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.

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.

Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

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).

Although it was tought to do, there really was no
option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.

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.

I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".

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.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[bwcbwc]

Some clarification. Many of the questions you selected apply to programs a potential GPL product's author is creating, rather than programs being modified by a GPL licensee. Based on some of the other FAQs, they're in trouble 1) for releasing binaries without an offer of the source code and 2) for distributing derivative binaries with a non-GPL license.

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.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Your lawyers are idiots.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

From the horse's (or, more appropriately, goat's) mouth

Well, in fact, gnu is more related to the antilopes...But nevermind..

Re:Its not such a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[blue_adept]

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?

Re:Its not such a big deal

[Eric119]

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.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[cuerty]

But remember that GPL 3 will change this: as discused here.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[blue_adept]

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.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

You are required to distribute to any third party, and the offer to do so must be valid for three years.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Those acronyms are retarded. You have 20 seconds, might as well type it out.

Or are you still hunt-and-peck?

Re:Its not such a big deal

[geekee]

"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.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[topham]

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.

Re:Its not such a big deal

[topham]

"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).

Re:Its not such a big deal

[Eric119]

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.

Frist psot!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

in honour of anul secks!!!

yay

fp?

[Anonymous Coward]

fp???

Hmmm...

[Stu L Tissimus]

This should certainly be an interesting read. I guess I have something to do during history class now, thanks! :D

Re:Hmmm...

[dawnread]

This should certainly be an interesting read. I guess I have something to do during history class now, thanks! :D

I think this gives an effective proof of just *how* boring history class is ;).

Linux users are just as guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

The Linux community likes to hide behind the mantra of free and open
software for all and as such has the twisted mindset that all software
should be free for everyone. This should come as no surprise seeing
that the Linux community seems to take pride in stealing anything they
can get their hands on and breaking laws designed to protect IP at the
same time.

Linux users have been advocating downloading Microsoft True Type Fonts
for years mostly because their own fonts and font system in general
has been so horrific that Linux screen fonts in most stock installs
are almost unreadable. Of course they will claim that Linux fonts are
great but if that were really the case why is the internet clogged
with Linux Font DeUglification documents written by Linux users?

They even have documents that give a step by step procedure for
stealing the Microsoft fonts and installing them on Linux systems!
Notice in particular the instructions for the Tahoma font.

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/mini/FDU/truetype.html
http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/

Next we have Linux users violating the EULA for the X-Box and
tinkering with it so that it can run Linux.
Why on earth any sane person would want to take a bitching game
machine like X-box and ruin it by installing Linux is a mystery to me.

http://xbox-linux.sourceforge.net/index.php

http://xbox-linux.sourceforge.net/faq.php

Pay particular attention to the question about it being illegal and
how they avoid answering the question.

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.

Finally we have the suit filed by SCO which claims that the Linux
community at large has incorporated stolen code into it's open source
programs.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,936269,00.asp

This should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the Linux
movement from the day Linux wrote the kernel.

The Linux community has proven themselves to be a fight to the end,
steal whatever can be stolen from big business because it is big
business that is killing Linux.

The Linux community has absolutely no respect for the property of
others and will resort to any type of clandestine tactics to steal
whatever isn't cemented down all in the good name of Linux.

So if you are thinking of betting your business on Linux software, you
had better think it over carefully, because if SCO should win, Linux
will be out of business.
And if SCO should lose, do you really think it is wise to bet your
entire business on software that is supported by a community that
promotes stealing and in fact is full of thieves?

Food for thought.

Re:Linux users are just as guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

This should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the Linux movement from the day Linux wrote the kernel.

wow, that's one amazing kernel.

Re:Linux users are just as guilty

[static0verdrive]

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.

Re:Linux users are just as guilty

[waferhead]

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...

Re:Linux users are just as guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Haven't we looked at this before?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Haven't we looked at this before?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they provide source, they're claiming that they wrote it all -- which is a breach of copyright, plain and simple.

Re:Haven't we looked at this before?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe so, but that's not part of the terms of the GPL. If they are following the terms, then allegations that they are not could be considered libelous.

Re:Haven't we looked at this before?

[Anonymous Coward]

The terms of the GPL require attribution. If you provide code and no attribution then you are violating the GPL.

Re:Haven't we looked at this before?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless he went through the documentation and removed any attribution, then the chances are he's attributing.

Re:Haven't we looked at this before?

[maxwell demon]

Well, the computing equivalent would probably be: In an encrypted file stored in sectors marked as unused in the file system, on a hard disc labelled "Warning: Virus infected!"
Ah, and of course the superblock had gone. As well as the partition table.

Re:Haven't we looked at this before?

[ThogScully]

You a script writer for 24? Seriously, that sounds like the first place they'd look for data hidden on a disk. ;-)
-N

Re:Haven't we looked at this before?

[vjmurphy]

I decided to rewrite your post for the movie version:

"The source may have been provided in a locked filing cabinet but it was made available."

Re:Haven't we looked at this before?

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

Do you have any idea how much damage that electromagnet would suffer if I let it roll straight over your hard drive?

Re:Haven't we looked at this before?

[AlexMax2742]

In spite of how much I loved the HHGTTG movie, I was wanting to be the first one to use this.

Damn you slashdot

Re:Haven't we looked at this before?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that they have attempted to obfuscate the compiled code, if they're claiming to have written it they'd look a bit silly shipping it with documentation credited to the original authors, wouldn't they?

Re:Haven't we looked at this before?

[Flendon]

"I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"But you found the source, didn't you?"

I think thats what you were going for?

Coral Cache

[dagnabit]

It's already getting slow...

http://www.drunkenblog.com.nyud.net:8090/drunkenbl og-archives/000534.html

Re:Coral Cache

[sp3tt]

Mirrordot: http://mirrordot.org/stories/f83daa4bda4e0acc1fba6 274fdcddfcb/index.html

Re:Coral Cache

[Knuckles]

I need to ask this once, and this seems a good place: what's the deal with coral cache? I have never, not once, ever, been able to get to a link to coral cache that was posted to /. It has always been as slashdotted as the original page itself. Am I the only one?

Re:Coral Cache

[Chmarr]

When you hit a nyud.net address, the DNS gives you back a small handful of IP addresses, based on where the request came from. Unfortunately, one of those IPs, the one your browser chooses to use, is as likely of getting slashdotted as the master site is.

Re:Coral Cache

[Knuckles]

Thanks a lot

Re:Coral Cache

[jericho4.0]

In addition to the above, if the site is /.'d, and coral didn't cache it previously, it won't be able to get the site to cache it.

I'm intrigued by this offer.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been looking into aquiring a shit covered leopard. Where might I find this toilet?

Re:I'm intrigued by this offer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch Trainspotting. It was roughly the third scene. Watching a human being splash through his own filth for drugs (refined filth) was more than I could handle, nearly as horrifying as the current political scene in America.
Maybe, at the end of my life, when all else is done, I can go back and pick up the balance of that film.

Re:I'm intrigued by this offer.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been looking into aquiring a shit covered leopard.

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of the word disused?

Re:I'm intrigued by this offer.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wan't aware that disused implied clean.

Re:I'm intrigued by this offer.

[Vo0k]

In the basement of the town hall. Be cautious, there is no stairs and the light is out.

Re:I'm intrigued by this offer.

[martinX]

At Number 42.

Re:I'm intrigued by this offer.

[Skye16]

It's very good. You won't be sorry. Just don't watch the first few minutes.

Re:I'm intrigued by this offer.

[genner]

There's a nasty puma down there too or so the sign says.

Re:I'm intrigued by this offer.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in my mom's basement now. Which way should I start tunnelling.

Re:I'm intrigued by this offer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Captain Dictionary. The joke doesn't have a contradiction if the leopord doesn't have some odd quality associated with the location.

"I've been looking into aquiring a leopard" is obviously unfinished.

But since you're so prone to confusion, I'm not really looking for a Leopard.

interesting read

[justforaday]

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.

Re:interesting read

[PeeweeJD]

I also read it at lunch time yesterday (actually during and after lunch time but don't tell my boss).

I hope like hell this guy doesnt get his ass sued off. If what he says is true, he didn't do anything wrong. I like reading his blog so it would be a shame for him to be sued into oblivion.

And I also hope that something good comes out of it for him and all the projects these maui xtream guy ripped off. If that video streaming crap is true and they are selling it for $10,000 a pop, maybe there is some money to be had for some very worthy OSS projects.

Re:interesting read

[Anonymous Coward]

> selling it for $10,000 a pop, maybe there is some money to be had for some very worthy OSS projects.

Haven't worked w/ MBA's nor lawyers, have you?

Re:interesting read

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh heh..

It's Arben...
He's surprised..
A beer drinking batman just showed a boot up his ass :)

Now, this is the kind of kick-ass stories we like! drunkenbatman -- y0u da'man!

Re:interesting read

[MarkGriz]

I hope like hell this guy doesnt get his ass sued off. If what he says is true, he didn't do anything wrong. I like reading his blog so it would be a shame for him to be sued into oblivion.

A lengthy read, but quite a thorough examination of the facts.

Imagine what Mr. Batman could do if he sobered up a bit :-)

Legal threats.

[Oscar_Wilde]

Is it just me or do articles starting with copies of letters from lawyers always turn out to be good?

Re:Legal threats.

[Pig Hogger]

Is it just me or do articles starting with copies of letters from lawyers always turn out to be good?

Cart00neys are ALWAYS funny

Re:Legal threats.

[strider44]

Perhaps you're onto something. I wonder if I could hire a lawyer to pretend to sue me for every article that I begin to write?

Re:Legal threats.

[eventhorizon5]

Well I got legal threats from MXS too for my research (I was the main tech analyst behind drunkenbatman's article). I'm going to scan the letters and post them somewhere hehe ;)

-eventhorizon

Re:Legal threats.

[eventhorizon5]

"Well I got legal threats from MXS too for my research (I was the main tech analyst behind drunkenbatman's article). I'm going to scan the letters and post them somewhere hehe ;)"

Let me add a little info to my post - do you know what they were complaining about? Jpeg images. Of a hex editor viewing strings in their binaries. Wow that's pretty illegal isn't it? lol - I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I got that. Just like MXS's lawyer said, "these links represent illegal activity" and earlier Jim Kartes told me that what I was doing was "extremely illegal". hehe ;)

-eventhorizon

Re:Legal threats.

[Monkelectric]

Thats funny, for me the article started out with "The attempt to contact drunkenblog.com timed out"

Re:Legal threats.

[sjf]

Depends upon who the recipient of the letter is. My experience of a lawsuit is not one that I would wnat to repeat. Despite winning and getting all the damages I asked for. I'm sure the story would be of interest to third parties. I'm not sure that drunkenbatman enjoys getting - even frivolous - letters from lawyers.

Re:Legal threats.

[Curtman]

WTF is offtopic about that?

Moderators suck.

Re:Legal threats.

[Pig Hogger]

WTF is offtopic about that?

The moderators, obviously...

Re:Legal threats.

[Curtman]

Well thanks for the link. I enjoyed it anyway.

What do you expect?

[gmaestro]

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.

YHBT ... YHL

[Anonymous Coward]

HAND

FREAKIN' LOAL DUDES!!!!

overwhelming evidence! Great article!

[xiando]

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.

Re:overwhelming evidence! Great article!

[harrkev]

True, but it takes a judge to administer the paddle once your pants are down.

The people in charge of the groups that own the code should get together and give permission for something like FSF to pursue this case in court (FSF has a few lawyers, I believe), and FSF gets to keep any money won in the suit. This appears to be an open-and-shut case. X-Stream gets shut down, FSF can try to get a lot of money from them, and the general public gets the source code to this nice (if stolen) software. Sounds like a win-win proposition to me.

Re:overwhelming evidence! Great article!

[Skye16]

Very nice job on his part. And people say blogs aren't journalists? This is one of the best cases of investigative reporting that I've ever seen. Just because you don't have the degree or work at the paper doesn't mean you can't do the job.

Re:overwhelming evidence! Great article!

[rob_squared]

As any prisoner will tell you, pulling their pants down is only the first step.

Re:overwhelming evidence! Great article!

[Anonymous Coward]

What? The article is not "unusually well written," but we'll get to that later. The author has some convincing evidence of wrongdoing, but the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty bad, because he goes on at length about "interesting" things that in no way relate to GPL violations (or any other sort of violation). Just one random example: they hired someone in the Ukraine to write some code for them... and there's evidence they used code written in the Ukraine! Well, I sure hope they burn in hell for that one.

Re:overwhelming evidence! Great article!

[SQLz]

Now a days, some bloggers are more real journalists than journalists. (in USA at least) Just checking facts and understanding the issue makes a blogger more qualfied than most of the press in this country.

Journalists/Press people have their job because they have the right face, hair, and name to be on TV. Other thant that, they are pretty much brain dead.

Haven't you noticed a lot of the big name news channels are actually reading news right from blogs now. CNN,MSNBC,etc have spots where they actually show the website and read the words off it. Its actually lame as shit. I think MSNBC has hot chicks that do it.

Re:overwhelming evidence! Great article!

[SendBot]

Watch last night's (the 10th) episode of the daily show about this very topic. go to shuntv.net if you don't know about it yet.

Re:overwhelming evidence! Great article!

[Anonymous Coward]

ex-nay on the untv-shay!

I'd really rather not have the website I use because I'm too cheap to buy a TiVo shut down by the copyright nuts who undoubtedly troll this site!

Re:overwhelming evidence! Great article!

[Sj0]

If you manage to get that much information into a format half as readable as this virtual page-turner, then you'll be qualified to say something.

Re:overwhelming evidence! Great article!

[Krach42]

The PearPC developers (us) already have representation. The same representation that WINE has. Eben Moglen.

Re:overwhelming evidence! Great article!

[dangitman]

Just checking facts and understanding the issue makes a blogger more qualfied than most of the press in this country.

Except that hardly any bloggers check their facts. There are a lot more dishonest and unskilled than there are dishonest, unskilled journalists. And they aren't accountable to editors or anyone, really. Such undeserved praise of bloggers is just going to make them as corrupt as anyone else.

The problem is the penalty

[Weaselmancer]

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.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Dehumanizer]

Nothing but the GPL allows usage or distribution of a GPL'ed program, so a GPL violation is a standard copyright violation - exactly like one concerning proprietary software.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[dawnread]

Yes but the point is with propretary software someone will sue and put money behind it.

It's like in the 'real world' - if there are laws that no-one enforces, people just ignore them.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[/ASCII]

This has happened multiple times, and the infringing company usually ends up posting the source.

The original MPlayer devellopers wanted to dual license MPlayer because they felt exactly the way you do after the MPlayer vs Kiss debacle. When it was discovered that Kiss had stolen GPL'ed code from MPlayer, they first flat out denied it, they even went as far as to imply that MPlayer had somehow stolen code from a KISS DVD-player. But in the end Kiss where forced to comply with the GPL and offer source downloads.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[bunratty]

I've violated copyrights dozens of times. I don't see any bars around me, and don't remember any fines I had to pay. It may be against the law, but without anyone actively enforcing it, we can get away with breaking it. That's the point the GP post makes.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[smittyoneeach]

Which is really the point of this whole exercise.
When awareness is raised, and people support the 'right' thing, and shun the 'ronngg', then we can spend more time enjoying life, and less time feeding the sharks.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[hacker]

"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."

Its simple. Once violated, your rights to continue to use the GPL are revoked. This means every copy you allow to be downloaded, sold, or given away is now a US Copyright Violation, subject to $20k to $200k in penalties per-copy. Its easier to enforce if they filed their copyright with the US Copyright office (we did to fight just the same thing).

Most GPL violations settle out of court because the costs associated with going to court are enormous. Its hard to assess "damages" against a GPL project where the code is given away, copied, shared, downloaded, etc. for free.

In some cases, if the project taken by a commercial entity is used to "compete" with the free version (i.e. they claim they wrote it), it is also a "Lanhan Act" violation, or "False designation of origin".

It gets really ugly when the GPL is violated, but the good thing is that once violated, the GPL is no longer even an issue, its a clear-cut US Copyright violation.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the thing - the GPL basically has no teeth. Who is going to stop CherryOS? Is Linux Torvalds going to dress in traditional Viking battle gear and bash down their front door?

I don't think so.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[emidln]

You know, I have a lot of respect for the man, but if he did that, he would replace my deity.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an interesing part to this as well. Both products seem to have been created by an offshore outsourcing company. If they claim that they've never seen the source to it, then it makes it a bit more tricky.

They can also claim the source was 'lost'.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

It gets really ugly when the GPL is violated, but the good thing is that once violated, the GPL is no longer even an issue, its a clear-cut US Copyright violation. And for non-US people this would mean...?

Re:The problem is the penalty

[burris]

Nonsense, a license is only needed to make copies. No license is necessary to use a legitimate copy of software.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[coolGuyZak]

Nonsense, a license is only needed to make copies. No license is necessary to use a legitimate copy of software

Better tell that one to Microsoft.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you live in bananaland, just read it as "it's a clear-cut copyright violation".

(And if you do live in bananaland, smoke some more bananas, and stop worrying about copyright, since you can't copy anything with a banana anyway).

Re:The problem is the penalty

[nurb432]

I tend to agree, who has been sued and lost ?

Several have settled at the threat of suit.. but who has actually gone and lost ( or won ).

Much as the RIAA P2P user suits. its all a bunch of hot air to get one to settle. Once it gets to court, all the air wil be let out.

Use the code. its been released.. if the writers dont like the virual nature of GPL that *forces* them to show the world and take the risk, then dont cry when someone uses it.

Sure.. mod me down since i said bad things about the GPL. you cant supress the truth forever.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

A hot lead enema, you fucking towel head piece of shit. You hear that? THE USA IS COMING FOR YOU FUCKS NEXT!

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Weaselmancer]

Most GPL violations settle out of court because the costs associated with going to court are enormous. Its hard to assess "damages" against a GPL project where the code is given away, copied, shared, downloaded, etc. for free.

I agree with your post (and I'm still not trolling, honest) but I have to point out that you've answered the "what" very completely... but not the "who". If someone is in violation, you've outlined the laws involved and the penalties to face. Only thing missing is someone to bring it to the courts.

As you've said, a lawsuit is an expensive affair. So my question is exactly who is going to put their poker chips on the table and tell the infringer "Hey, stop it or we're going to court." These kinds of projects tend to be a little money-shy. Perhaps a wily infringer might gamble that the project has no money to mount a legal defense of their GPL code.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Microsoft agrees you can link to their DLLs without violating copyright.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[WhiteWolf666]

The FSF will defend your project if you sign over some rights to them. I'm not exactly sure how that works, I believe they become 'party' to your copyright, but I'm not certain.

Not that its always the best option, but its a decent option for a small group of developers working on a small project.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[danheskett]

Can you cite a single case where a copyright violation stemming from software that is released through the GPL ended with statutory fines being awarded to the plantiff?

I agree that it certainly does appear to be a "clear cut US copyright violation", however, in front of a judge lots of things can happen. The judge could waive statutory fines, or reduce them, and impose only damages, which could be proven to be zero. The judge could decide that releasing something under the GPL waives your copyright, or lessens its protections. A typical judge even when dealing with laws with no breathing room and no assignable discretion will find ways to inject. It could only be worse when dealing with modern copyright and it's 30 year rollercoaster of changes, case law, and abborations.

"Clear cut" is on paper. Unless you know of a speicfic case I've missed, I can't see anything that would indicate this as a "slam dunk" type of case!

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Darren Winsper]

Microsoft doesn't agree, they let you.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[marsvin]

Well, if nothing else, the potential customers would go to sf.net and download the stuff for free. To quote Eben Moglen:

I have assisted free software developers other than the FSF to deal with such problems, which we have resolved--since the criminal infringer would not voluntarily desist and, in the cases I have in mind, legal technicalities prevented actual criminal prosecution of the violators--by talking to redistributors and potential customers. ``Why would you want to pay serious money,'' we have asked, ``for software that infringes our license and will bog you down in complex legal problems, when you can have the real thing for free?'' Customers have never failed to see the pertinence of the question. The stealing of free software is one place where, indeed, crime doesn't pay.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

If I do this, and get caught...so what? What's the penalty? Exactly who is going to prosecute?

This is what I'm wondering.

The violation of the GPL seems solid. These guys raped not one or two GPL'ed apps, but many! They should be raked over the coals.

But it seems that the FSF isn't serious about vigorously enforcing the GPL. Yeah, I know, that's material for flamebait, but doesn't the history support it?

I almost wonder whether the precedent is being set to undermine the entire GPL by not vigorously pursuing these violations. :-(

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Several have settled at the threat of suit.. but who has actually gone and lost ( or won ).
Well...
BERLIN, Germany - Apr. 14, 2004 -- The Munich district court granted a preliminary injuction against Sitecom Germany GmbH (http://www.sitecom.com/). This injunctive relieve has been applied by the netfilter/iptables project (http://www.netfilter.org/).
-- full story http://netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.h tml
It's a german court, but still...

Re:The problem is the penalty

[ad0gg]

Its so easy to get around the "revoked license" part of the GPL. Just download a new copy of GPL project, and it has a new license agreement(new contract). Agree to terms(in your head) and now your covered under the law by a new agreement/license. If the author adds text to agreement that says "so and so entity cannot license project", go find an older version of it that has the former agreement. GPL is so flawed and adds restrictions, use BSD license which grants more freedoms. MYSQL AB is my proof.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[MegaFur]

I think what some of the other posts are trying to point out is that at least some of these violations actually *have* been looked into. I wouldn't actually know (standard clueless slashdotter here), but apparently, once the original authors are aware of the GPL violation, they've got options. One standard one would be getting the Free Software Foundation involved.

What copyright violations have you been party to? Are we talking about copying a few lines out of a book? Copying whole DVDs? The first one is probably fair use, the second one would be a violation, but yes it's likely no one's going to find out so... *shrug*

But now suppose you sold many copies of that illegally copied DVD at a busy street intersection--yes you might still get away with it, but I think you'd be feeling the potential pressure of getting caught.

In general, with all these random free software geeks out there in the world, any company that takes some GPL code and uses against the terms of the GPL will have to be on the look out. (or so goes the theory--other threads claim that some other companies were found to be illegally using GPL code and that those companies were eventually pressured into releasing the source).

So maybe there is someone enforcing these things. Or maybe not. I have no clue. :-)

Re:The problem is the penalty

[mOdQuArK!]

He'd just ask his wife to do it - I believe she's won some national-level martial arts championships.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[gerddie]

But in the end Kiss where forced to comply with the GPL and offer source downloads.

Actually, no. The firmware source includes uClinux-2.4.17 and busybox and it is dated 23.jun.2003, this is before the mplayer issue rose.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[hacker]

"GPL is so flawed and adds restrictions, use BSD license which grants more freedoms."

...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).

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

The FSF will defend your project if you sign over some rights to them. I'm not exactly sure how that works, I believe they become 'party' to your copyright, but I'm not certain.

No, they want you to sign over copyright. They own your project. Needless to say, very few people actually do this.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Idarubicin]

Its hard to assess "damages" against a GPL project where the code is given away, copied, shared, downloaded, etc. for free.

On the other hand, since Maui X-Stream is actually selling the software for real money (thousands of dollars, in some cases) it gets a lot easier to assign a cash value. That price--real money paid to MXS--would seem to be an excellent starting point for calculating punitive damages.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[awa]

>Is Linux Torvalds going to dress in traditional
> Viking battle gear and bash down their front
> door?

I don't think he would. RMS might, though

Re:The problem is the penalty

[shotfeel]

Much as the RIAA P2P user suits. its all a bunch of hot air to get one to settle. Once it gets to court, all the air wil be let out.

I wish I could find the link to the transcript of a presentation Eben Moglen (FSA lawyer) gave. In it he states the GPL has been repeatedly tested, though as you say its never gone to court. The reason is that it is bulletproof. Either a defendent argues they have no right to copy at all, or they argue the GPL in invalid, in which case they have to right to copy at all.

Once that is pointed out to the infringer, they've all settled out of court, with the FSF always getting what it asked for : compliance with the GPL (not monetary damages).

Anybody know where that transcript went? IIRC it was from about a year ago.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[ad0gg]

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.

How is that less freedom? Thats more freedom for people who use the project. You may not like what people are doing to your work, but that isn't less freedom. Thats like saying public domain is the lowest on the freedom scale. Demanding contribution back from something you give away does not equal free. Instead of a monetary fee, you're expecting something else in return. When I write articles about fishing on other websites web forums, i don't mind people taking my work, change it or do whatever too it. When I write code snippets for the asp.net forums, i write it to help people out and too contribute. I don't expect people who use the snippets to contribute back. I would be happy if they did but i don't expect it. Thats were GPL fails the freedom test. Worrying about some company making money off your work shows some selfishness. Its kinda like when my grandmother gave away her old violin to the public school system music program, only to find out that it was a collectors item and worth $25k. And getting pissed over it.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[jonbryce]

It is so clear cut that it has never needed to be tested in court. In every case, they have settled outside court as they realise they have no chance whatsoever or winning in court.

There are a couple of cases in Germany that were found in favour of the free software author.

Let me explain how clear cut this is:

If you are accused of copyright infringement, you can say one of three things

1. I didn't copy it
2. I did copy it, but I have your permission
3. I did copy it without permission.

1. Will be a finding of fact, not a legal argument.

3. Means you are immediately found guilty.

2. Requires you to accept that the GPL is valid, and that you complied with its conditions.

Claiming that the GPL is invalid isn't an option you have. If you claim that the GPL is not valid, this means you don't have permission to copy so 3. applies, and you are immediately found guilty.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[hacker]

"Worrying about some company making money off your work shows some selfishness."

You've missed my point.

I don't care if a company makes money from GPL code, and in fact I strongly enourage them to do so (as does the GPL itself).

What I do care about is a company taking my code, improving it, selling the version with those improvements, and not contributing those improvements back to the community that gave them the code in the first place.

It hurts the existing users of the code who can't take advantage of others improving that same code. Its restrictive.

I happen to appreciate lots of the snippets in the public domain, little "building blocks" that can be incorporated into other apps, but when a full application (covered by a license to redistribute, because licenses don't cover use, they cover redistribution) is created to help users and a selfish user or corporate entity refuses to help the same community that helped them (save money, save time, code, whatever), I have zero sympathy.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[nurb432]

its still not *proven* until it goes to court. Until then its just people *accepting* it.

Personally I don't accept any restrictions. If I see code, its mine to do with as I please. Don't want me to do that? Then don't let me see the code.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Brian Blessed]

in the end Kiss where forced to comply with the GPL and offer source downloads.

You're implying that Kiss were forced to open their source, which isn't a possible outcome a GPL infringement case.

They would either be forced to stop distributing the software, or decide to agree to the terms of the GPL and *choose* to open their source as a result.

- Brian

Re:The problem is the penalty

[ad0gg]

Here's a question. What if company takes your project improves greatly on it by assigning a group of programmers on it, and uses it for their core infrastructure and never releases the source code? One project i've seen working at other in the telecom field is people taking an open source SIP stack and improving greatly on it for foundation of their company voip network. Mainly because commercial stacks can cost upwards of a million dollars and OSS stacks are almost there but need a little help to get them up to the reliabilty and featurewise of commercial stacks. Or google not releasing their code modifications to the linux OS that powers their datacenter machines. I've seen tons OSS modifed greatly but used internally.

Most gpl violation posted on slashdot i see are very petty, someone company used some guys network project. When the code finally came out, there were no improvements. And when GPL projects do get improvements, like Apple's safari use of konquer code. There's no documentation making the code worthless. GPL also snares innocents. If I sell my personal computer which has bunch of OSS applications installed, i would be forced to remove the applications in order not violate the redistribution part of the GPL license agreement or allow away for other people to get the project. GPL license agreement tries to remove some of our first sale rights with its redistribution section. If I sell my purhcased redhat cd, under the agreement i'm in violation of the GPL without allowing away for other people to get the source. GPL is so flawed, which is how mysql ab makes their money.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[greed]

GPL is about freedom for the end-user--the one person who does NOT need to be bound by the GPL. (If they distribute the code, they are no longer (only) an end-user.) The GPL is there to make sure that one person gets a copy of the source needed to make the binary.

BSD is about freedom for the developer.

They've got different goals. The GPL was, essentially, written in response to buggy proprietary software that the supplier would not fix.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[mobiGeek]

...decide to agree to the terms of the GPL and *choose* to open their source as a result.

Just because we're picking nits....

They would actually only need to *choose* to offer the source code to those who have received binaries of the product (as well as *not* restrict those people from re-redistributing the source).

They do not need to "open" the source to the general public.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[mobiGeek]

One project i've seen working at other in the telecom field is people taking an open source SIP stack and improving greatly on it for foundation of their company voip network.

Modification for your own use is completely valid and legal. You only need to provide source code to whomever/whatever you provide the modified product to.

Or google not releasing their code modifications to the linux OS that powers their datacenter machines.

Google is not distributing the resultant product (modified OS) to any external entities. If they do, they need to provide the source code to that entity.

If I sell my personal computer which has bunch of OSS applications installed, i would be forced to remove the applications in order not violate the redistribution part of the GPL license agreement or allow away for other people to get the project.

What utter nonesense. You would be force to remove the applications if you (a) did not provide the source code or (b) somehow restricted the purchaser from getting access to the source code. If you haven't modified the docs or license that came with the installed apps, it is almost certain that the purchaser will have all the information they need to have the freedom to use the software.

If I sell my purhcased redhat cd, under the agreement i'm in violation of the GPL without allowing away for other people to get the source.

Money has nothing to do with it. If you give someone a GPL'ed application (whether you purchased it or not), and don't provide them access to the source code then you are violating the GPL.

You, the distributor, cannot restrict their access to the source code nor restrict them from redistributing the source code. That is all.

GPL is so flawed, which is how mysql ab makes their money.

This is so wrong. MySQL AB has a dual-license model, with the GPL being one license.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

No, if your rights are terminated under a license (and the termination is allowed by the license) that's it. You're done. You have violated the license.

Oh, and the FIRST time you distribute GPL'd code improperly is copyright infringement, not the SECOND. So your post was absolutely pointless anyways.

If I compiled the Linux Kernel and released it under a proprietary license, my rights terminate. HOWEVER, I DO NOT NEED TO DISTRIBUTE IT AGAIN TO COMMIT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT! I already have with the first incident. And IBM et al would sue my pants off.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[AnotherBlackHat]

If I do this, and get caught...so what? What's the penalty? Exactly who is going to prosecute?

The copyright holder.

To illustrate, imagine the following scenario;
Alice licenses software to anyone for $5000.
Bob distributes Alice's software without paying the $5000.
When Bob gets caught, Alice sues the hell of him.

Now substitute "if they agree to comply with the GPL" for "for $5000"
Everything else remains the same.

-- Should you believe authority without question?

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Mr Z]

In theory, if it's a large enough violation, it becomes a criminal act at the Federal level, as opposed to a civil liability. In that case, I'd imagine the Department of Justice can bring suit.

--Joe

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Bloater]

If you buy a peice of commercial software, they grant some right to copy. If you get a peice of GPL software, they grant shitloads of rights to copy. If you get something that is covered by copyright with no notice of terms for copying, you have *no right to copy*. Where are your rights of first sale there?

By default you cannot do *anything* with a copyrighted work but hang the media it came on onto your living room wall. The commercial guys let you load it onto a computer, the GPL guys let you do just about anything with it as long as for some of those things you provide source (or offer of source), and you offer it on under the same terms.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[ad0gg]

By default you cannot do *anything* with a copyrighted work but hang the media it came on onto your living room wall.

Wrong. I can sell used dvds, games, music cds and software cds all protected under the first sale copy right doctrine. I can even modify, as proved with the guys who were selling modifed dvds that removed non family content from them. GPL can't get around the first sale doctrine and will be proved invalid. Much like i can buy a book, rip out a few pages and resell it and not be in violation of the copyright laws. I can buy red hat cd, burn a copy with my changes and sell both the red hat cd and burnt copy. Only way copyright infringement can prevent this is if the cd implement DRM so it falls under the DMCA. First Sale is my right to modify and/or resell and it will lead to downfall of the GPL which tries infringe on this right.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[apdt]

Google is not distributing the resultant product (modified OS) to any external entities.

Are you sure about that? I'm not saying they are, just raising the question...

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Bloater]

You don't accept the restrictions. The law says you are fully restricted by default. The GPL is a promise from the copyright owner to not take any action against you for some specific redistribution of a certain form (they give you license to redistribute in some specified manner). So the law no-longer stops you from distribution in that certain manner. The law in every country that signed up to the berne convention says that you cannot just do what you wish with copyrighted work. eg, a book.

To copy/redistribute/etc a work in a manner restricted by copyright law that you have not been granted license to do, is known colloquially as "piracy".

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Bloater]

GPL does not try to infringe on this right. If your country permits you to do it with books, movies, and songs, your country permits you to do it with GPL software. IE, if you get a fedora cd, you can sell it on to somebody else. Simple.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[ad0gg]

Can i buy a fedora cd, make a bunch of code changes. Then resell the orginal copy along with burned copy of just the binary with my changes? My right under first sale doctrine. GPL adds restrictions and forbids that.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[nycbicyclist]

I wouldn't be so certain that the difficulties of enforcement have anything to do with the fact that the software is open source. It's always difficult to prosecute fly-by-night scumbags. Having ready access to sources may make it easier for the scumbags to rip people off, but it also makes it easier to track what's happened (as demonstrated in TFA). It's true that a large company whose proprietary software is being ripped off might be able to deliver a world of pain to the perpretrators. But litigation is expensive, even for big companies and I doubt they would press for further penalties if they could shut down the perpetrator with exposure and the threat of a lawsuit.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[nurb432]

Do i care? No. I dont honor the GPL or any other claim of 'copyright'.

I do as i please. Pretty simple.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[JabberWokky]

Setting aside the fact that many open source projects have backers, and many open source authors are paid for their work, the simple fact that there is big money to go after is enough to attract many attorneys.

A lawsuit, even a fairly big one, is well within the means of a typical homeowner. Not for a ramen-eating subsistence level college student, but even there, you have plenty of legal options. And most developers that I talk to are married with a home and children, certainly able to retain counsel, especially for something that is clear cut and can provide hefty fees the attorney can get a cut of.

We're not talking about some elite, near mythical group of people; open a phone book if you need a lawyer.

--
Evan

Re:The problem is the penalty

[greenrd]

Can you buy a Windows CD, make a bunch of code changes, and the resell it as "Windows Improved Edition"? No, copyright law forbids that. It's a derivative work. First sale doctrine does not come into it.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[MrResistor]

who has been sued and lost ?

Sitecom, in a German court.

But hey, if you don't think it's valid feel free to try it yourself.

you cant supress the truth forever.

The truth is that you'd have to be a fscking idiot to try and take on the GPL in court. That's obvious to anyone who's read it and has even a basic understanding of copyright law (clearly, this group does not include you).

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Bloater]

No it isn't. First sale lets you sell that original CD, full stop. You can't sell a book along with a photocopy with lots of changes either.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[nurb432]

I dont acknowledge copyright. In any form.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[danheskett]

You are way out of touch.

Saying "it's clear cut" is not all there is to it!

You can go to court and say, I am not the one copying, they are! My code was stolen by hackers, and now people are giving it away!

What then?

You are making things up based on your perception of copyright law. The fact is and remains that many copyright disputes drag on for years, and a few for a decade or more.

For every GPL case settled before court there is another that is forgotten about, or never pursued in the first place.

The fact is an remains that there is not binding legal precendent established that says that you can nail someone with a combination of GPL + copyright. For all you know, a judge could review the GPL and find that it's an unenforceable restriction, violates some arcane rule, and there the author forfiets his/her copyright. More bizarre things have happened in copyright cases.

Speculation is fun, but it's not binding!

Re:The problem is the penalty

[jonbryce]

"You can go to court and say, I am not the one copying, they are! My code was stolen by hackers, and now people are giving it away!"

That is a matter of fact, not a legal argument, and has nothing to do with the GPL.

"The fact is an remains that there is not binding legal precendent established that says that you can nail someone with a combination of GPL + copyright. For all you know, a judge could review the GPL and find that it's an unenforceable restriction, violates some arcane rule, and there the author forfiets his/her copyright."

It won't happen.

If you want to copy, you need a licence. If the GPL isn't a valid licence, you don't have a licence, and you can't copy.

There are plenty of cases around to support the idea that you can't copy without a licence.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[danheskett]

It won't happen.
SAYS YOU. You are not a judge. The fact, and remains, that more bizarre things have happened. Judges and/or juries have revoked copyright protection before; they have made rulings that contravene your so-called "clear cut" cases.

For example, if you promise someone that something has "free" source, but it turns out there are a bunch of hidden restrictions on how you use it, you can lose your copyright protection. Maybe a judge rules that having a small file called "COPYING" included as one of 10,000 files isn't enough. Maybe that judge decides that it was a malicious attempt to harm a commerical vendor - entice them into something "free" and then nail them with a copyright violation. The fact is and remains that similiar things have happened outside the realm of software in the print and publishing industries. Maybe that judge uses an existing case to revoke a GPL'ers copyright protections.

You simply cannot say otherwise. Depending on the specifics of case anything could happen. There is such a body of case law, legislation, and grey area that until such a time as it happens, anything could happen.

There are plenty of cases around to support the idea that you can't copy without a licence.
And there are plenty of cases where copyright protection was abrogatted because of notice issues, because of various tactics, because of circumstances, etc.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Brother, I've seen this done where the CEO said "Everyone does it" and "we'll publish in six months", and was clearly lying.

I've resigned. They are in *DEEP* trouble with me gone.

Re:The problem is the penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

because it allows (and in most cases, encourages) abuse without any penalty

talk about ass-backwards. Think carefully about what it means to "abuse" the BSD license, and how this might differ from abusing the GPL or LGPL.

eMule, eMule+, MetaCafe and the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

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:
http://forum.emule-project.net/index.php?showtopic =72668 (login probably required)
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.

Re:eMule, eMule+, MetaCafe and the GPL

[mwvdlee]

The second link explains it quite nicely.

If indeed the developer is using the code with permission from the original developers, it isn't a violation.

I think you may wrongly be assuming that the copyright of said code has moved from the original developers to the end-users by adopting the GPL license.

A license is not a restriction but... well... a license to do things you can't do under the default copyright (which is by default all-restrictive). There's nothing to stop the original copyright holder to have multiple different licences on his product; i.e. GPL & commercial. In fact, this is done in many cases.

To be perfectly honest however, there is a law that states that everybody should have equal rights to a license, so it really depends on what the license entails as to whether any other person would have rights to use the code under the same non-GPL license restrictions. i.e. If the developer paid the copyright holders 1$ each, anybody should be allowed to get the same license for the same price. I hope somebody can comment on this though, since I'm not too certain how these "equal rights" work. Either way, it still wouldn't require the developer to open up his/her code.

Re:eMule, eMule+, MetaCafe and the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the eMule+ developers arn't the original developers of a large part of the codebase, they are after all using a fork of eMule codebase.

I am well aware that the copyright doesn't move to the end-users, however the eMule+ and MetaCafe devs have violated the copyrights of everyone else who has contributed to that codebase. The eMule+ devs simply don't have the rights to change the license of the codebase.

Re:eMule, eMule+, MetaCafe and the GPL

[GridPoint]

Isn't eMule a peer-to-peer filesharing program? Do you actually believe that people developing programs for the sole purpose of distributing digital copies of copyrighted (+ proprietary) computer software, music and movies, are going to care much about copyright and the GPL? The strength of the GPL comes directly from copyright law, you know.

Yeah, eMule obviously can be used for distribution of legal GPL/open source/freeware software too, but - come on - that's not what it mainly is used for.

Re:eMule, eMule+, MetaCafe and the GPL

[Suidae]

To be perfectly honest however, there is a law that states that everybody should have equal rights to a license, so it really depends on what the license entails as to whether any other person would have rights to use the code under the same non-GPL license restrictions. i.e. If the developer paid the copyright holders 1$ each, anybody should be allowed to get the same license for the same price

What? That sounds silly. As owner of a copyrighted work, it should be my perogative to license it to whomever I choose, for whatever I can convince them to give me for it.

Its a regular practice in many vertical markets to charge every customer differently (normally as much as you can wring out of them), and its not uncommon to make the sign a non-disclosure regarding the licensing terms.

Re:eMule, eMule+, MetaCafe and the GPL

[mwvdlee]

It just occured to me that that law may probably be about patent licenses, not copyright licenses; everybody would have equal right to license a patent as other licensees.

My bad.

But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Our company was considering using open source tools and applications as part of the suite we develelop. The beancounters were intrigued by the idea that we could use huge swathes of exisiting code with our own, and charge for support and customisation, but felt it was worth an experiment.

But then 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. He canned the project immediately.

Stop the hysteria, people. You're harming open source!

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[nuggz]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[DrSkwid]

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

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[AndroidCat]

Strange, I can't imagine the "community" reacting very strongly when a company that openly and honestly uses GPL code and makes a best effort to comply with the licence slips up. "Of course we use xxxx code, it's right there in our documentation. We thought we were complying with the licence, but give us a few days to review this and if we made a mistake, we'll correct it as soon as possible."

It's these companies that sneak around like weenie-waggers and wave their cartoonie lawyers instead when they get caught that get the flames.

Re:But this is a problem

[inflex]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[91degrees]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

My real name can't be traced from my user name. I just find objecting to the GPL can cause a karma hit.

Re:But this is a problem

[Moraelin]

"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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Quill_28]

The GPL sucks for businesses. That's why Stallman came up with it.

I believe, Open Source is good for business in the long run, but I can't understand why most businesses would use GPL software in their code.

It may save them time but many times there is just as good BSD-type software out there.

I find the whole thing quite interesting and will be fun to watch over the decade.

Re:But this is a problem

[HermanAB]

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...

Re:But this is a problem

[Moraelin]

"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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so your boss made sure to get rid of UNIX when SCO launched their copyright infringment claims against IBM then?

Re:But this is a problem

[swv3752]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:But this is a problem

[91degrees]

Not happened yet.

If it does we'll have to look at the legal situation.

Re:But this is a problem

[91degrees]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[91degrees]

What would you suggest then? Seems MS will invade whatever we do unless we use their software. Which wouldn't be practical.

Re:But this is a problem

[ccady]

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?

Re:But this is a problem

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[lspd]

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?

Re:But this is a problem

[91degrees]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[91degrees]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[91degrees]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[nuggz]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[lspd]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh no.

GPL is fine for most corporate development ... .. 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.

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Quill_28]

I should have said software business.

Stallman clearly states that software developers should not get paid anymore than a gas station clerk.

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[Quill_28]

And why is Apache doing so well?

Why in BSD used in OS X?

One example does not make it true.

Re:But this is a problem

[the_womble]

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.

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[91degrees]

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?

Re:But this is a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[91degrees]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[91degrees]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[belmolis]

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.

Re:But this is a problem

[dangitman]

.. anything they do contribute, they're doing so 100% voluntarily.

Isn't freedom a good thing? Isn't volunteering 100% to do something better than being "forced" to?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Looks like they're dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a look at:

http://www.cherryos.com/

Now they are saying: :: CHERRYOS IS NO MORE ::

and they are linking to:

http://emaculation.com/

What they hell are these guys doing now?!?!?

Re:Looks like they're dead?

[lauridsd]

>>What they hell are these guys doing now?!?!? From the looks of it, I'd say running and hiding.

Re:Looks like they're dead?

[rob_squared]

I'm suprised they're actually linking to something relavent at all. I used to frequent that site. E-Maculation talks about PearPC and Sheepshaver, two emulators of the PowerPC platform. I don't see why they just don't link to PearPC directly and cut out the middleman. But I guess then they'd be admitting where their code came from.

Re:Looks like they're dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Covering up the obvious. By the looks of it, this shows that they KNOW THEY VIOLATED THE GPL. By knowingly covering it up like this, they're just dooming themselves in any sort of court case.

Re:Looks like they're dead?

[randomErr]

They just didn't want put out thier source code which would let anyone prove they stole it all. Remember, Cherry OS was suppose to go OSS in April of 2005.

Join in the supposed slander and libel

[FidelCatsro]

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 .

To MXS
To me your company (MXS) is nothing but a bunch of liers and plagerists .Anyone buying your products should realise this and realise that they are funding an organisation with no ethics and a dubious reputation .
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.

In the immortal words of Bill Lawry...

[scum-e-bag]

Got him, yes, piss off, you're out!

Re:In the immortal words of Bill Lawry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Australians will immediately moderate this as funny... otherwise, it's just not cricket!

Re:In the immortal words of Bill Lawry...

[Bigthecat]

Jesus, a 12th Man quote on Slashdot moderated so quickly... *sniff* I'm so proud!

Re:In the immortal words of Bill Lawry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I don't about that Bill... I think he just aimed at the f@cking things and that's why the ball kept low.

Re:In the immortal words of Bill Lawry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Marvellous.

Legal Shmotice

[rakolam]

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

MXS = Stupid

[Chanc_Gorkon]

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.

Re:MXS = Stupid

[bw5353]

You are right in that they could have sold the product releasing the source code and giving credit.

However, from a marketing point of view it is probably not that clever to go out and say; "Buy our great product for a lot of money. By the way, it is almost identical to this other thing that you can download for absolutely free from another website."

Re:MXS = Stupid

[MikeBabcock]

If you can't market it, its not the fault of the original author -- it just means you have no business plan.

I'm tired of hearing about these "poor companies" who can't market their software legally. If you can't sell it, don't cry to me, move on and write something you *can* sell.

If you can't figure out how to make money selling software, change industries.

Besides, all they have to do is provide download links for the sources they used from their own site to those customers they sell the binaries to.

They don't need to "publish" where to get it, or anything besides making a link available to the GPL. Its not hard to be in compliance.

Re:MXS = Stupid

[Klivian]

>"Buy our great product for a lot of money. By the way, it is almost identical to this other
>thing that you can download for absolutely free from another website."

Why not? It works great for both CodeWeavers and TransGaming.

Re:MXS = Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

But according to the article, it's possible that they never had the source code. It might be hard to release something you never had. ;)

Re:MXS = Stupid

[theTerribleRobbo]

After violating the GPL the first time around, they lost the right to use the code at all, regardless whether they released the source later or not.

Commercial software pirates

[canuck57]

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.

Re:Commercial software pirates

[hacker]

"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."

This is called a "Lanham Act Violation" (false designation of origin), and can be prosecuted under the law. If some company takes your code and claims they wrote it, you have legal grounds to chew them into dust.

Re:Commercial software pirates

[wes33]

you have legal grounds to chew them into dust ...

so long as you a million or so to fund the case ...

Re:Commercial software pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the reason the FSF wants people who use the GPL to assign copyright to the FSF. If the FSF has the copyright, they will sue the companies who voilate their copyright.

Re:Commercial software pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

How tough is it to say "Built on Open Source with credits to...."?

While I would see that as a distinct bonus, most people outside of tech circles see "open source = free = cheap = who knows what those hackers have done with it (suspect bad things)".

Promoting OSS is so far a risk unless your audience appreciates what reality is as opposed to the myths that are still unfortunately passed along as 'facts about open source'.

Re:Commercial software pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to trust the FSF. Then all this madness with the GFDL being "free" started. They're losing it, it seems.

Re:Commercial software pirates

[belphegore]

If the company in question was McAfee, then technically it's kinda-true. McAfee owns the copyright to large chunks of SpamAssassin, including all the original code by Justin Mason. Not really the best way of phrasing it, but then I have no idea what the sales guy actually said. If it's any other company, it's BS.

Re:Commercial software pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

More correctly, McAfee bought Deersoft (?) which sold a commercialized version of Justin Mason's work. Or that is the way I read it. I should visit McAfee's web site to see if they give credit yet. And last time I looked I didn't see McAfee as a sponsor or major contributor at the SpamAssassin site. Assuming this is the company in question.

Re:Commercial software pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Where I work, we are under various licenses and contracts that make it impossible to use GPL or similarly licensed code in our products. Even though the code is encrypted in a way that makes it very unlikely anyone would ever see it, our managements attitude to it is simple. If we can't comply with the licence, then don't touch it. Even if that means someone has to spend a couple of weeks reinventing the wheel. (I spent two weeks writing a set of Unicode functions that did the same job as at least 4 libraries that I found on the net.) I really wonder about the sort of people who see theft as the the only way to make their business profitable.

appropriate response to

[Anonymous Coward]

"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...

Re:appropriate response to

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardly deserving of an "Insightful" moderation, as legally speaking, a blank piece of paper is not "responsive" in the legal sense.
At minimum, DB would need to provide a statement that he initiated no contact with any of MXS' customers.
IANAL

Patterns

[kaltekar]

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.

This happens more often than you think...

[hacker]

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:

"...if we end up in court, I'll bankrupt these guys..."

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).

Re:This happens more often than you think...

[hhghghghh]

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. Ooh! Slander! Why didn't she sue them for that alone? Doesn't her testimony count as evidence, being an officer of the court? She could have made out like a bandit!

Re:This happens more often than you think...

[Tim Browse]

A few years ago I caught Sony doing this [gnu-designs.com] and reported about it

That was interesting. I spent the first half of reading your account thinking what a smug annoying dick you were (mainly due to the "No, you're not one of me. You could never be one of me." comment). Then I got to the bit where the Sony guy said "We don't really care about that. Go ahead, sue us and see how far you get..." and I was deeply impressed with your restraint.

I think I might have politely asked to see his Clie so I could show him something, then smashed the screen on the corner of the seat and quietly handed it back to him.

I mean, what's he going to do? :-)

Re:This happens more often than you think...

[HeelToe]

I used to provide an HTTP mirror of your work to ease your bandwidth pain upon releases. The rsync updates have long since stopped working - are you still interested in mirrors?

Re:This happens more often than you think...

[hacker]

HAhAhAHAHaHhAahahhahhAHAHHAhAhA... great idea!

Re:This happens more often than you think...

[benploni]

Wendy Seltzer is amazing. She's a true asset to the EFF.

Re:This happens more often than you think...

[oni]

um, so the point of your story is that you haven't been able to enforce the GPL? Great.

Re:This happens more often than you think...

[Wylfing]

I am very curious about why you should have trouble moving this case forward and/or obtaining representation. It looks to me like a shark would pick up this case and bloody this company for a big, juicy paycheck in a hearbeat, with no upfront costs to you. If you have reasonable evidence of infringement and Lanham Act violation, get consultation from the most expensive ambulance chasers in town. They should be able to kick this CEO in the balls for a few mil plus compliance. They'll take 40-60%, but who cares?

Re:This happens more often than you think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have there been any hearings?
Post docket numbers, and it will be easier to buy your story.

Re:This happens more often than you think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, they're in the process of enforcing the GPL. Like so much of what goes through the courts here in the USA it can take a long time.

Re:This happens more often than you think...

[hacker]

"I am very curious about why you should have trouble moving this case forward and/or obtaining representation. It looks to me like a shark would pick up this case and bloody this company for a big, juicy paycheck in a hearbeat, with no upfront costs to you."

Mostly because Wendy moved on to work for the EFF and all attempts to get a replacement pro-bono attorney from the FSF (with as much clue as Wendy) were unsuccessful.

And since we are wholly self-funded, putting up the retainer costs to talk to an attorney for 3-4 hours at his dime is not something we can just do, even if he decides to take the case as a "Slam Dunk" on his own merit.

Also, we're giving the company who is infringing some time to hang themselves while we gather more information. They're now selling "Their Solution(tm)" to a pretty serious mobile vendor who is incorporating it into ROM on their upcoming devices. If this is true, a lot of companies and partners are in a world of hurt.

It'll happen, it just takes time.

Re:This happens more often than you think...

[MarkGriz]

And since we are wholly self-funded, putting up the retainer costs to talk to an attorney for 3-4 hours at his dime is not something we can just do, even if he decides to take the case as a "Slam Dunk" on his own merit.

Seems to me there is a market for some enterprising attorneys to seek out GPL violators and sue their asses off (on behalf of the violatee of course). I don't mean on a pro-bono basis either. I mean as a business (they would keep a % of the settlement)

Instead of "ambulance chasers", they could go by "code chasers"

Re:This happens more often than you think...

[hacker]

"Seems to me there is a market for some enterprising attorneys to seek out GPL violators and sue their asses off (on behalf of the violatee of course). I don't mean on a pro-bono basis either. I mean as a business (they would keep a % of the settlement)"

Ironic you should bring that up... about an hour after my post, I received an email from an attorney in Atlanta, GA. who specifically deals with this problem, from a commercial perspective. He wanted to hear the details of my story and some background on the process we used to discover, persue, follow the violation.

I spent about 30 minutes with him on the phone filling him in with more information than he problably wanted, from one OSS community's perspective.

Its happening, and awareness is happening, but it will take time...

Re:This happens more often than you think...

[nametaken]

I would be very interested in contact information for this attourney. I think he'd appreciate some free publicity in the smaller forums of the OSS world. In return, I'd like to see more attention to GPL'd code as a valid license.

Re:This happens more often than you think...

[Krach42]

I'd suggest contacting the Software Freedom Law Center.

They're currently representing us (the PearPC development team) and offering WINE free legal assistance.

They're basically the lawyer arm of the EFF, except that they left to be able to help the FOSS community better.

I feel your pain man, these corporations are annoying.

Best of all, if you get Eben Moglen to represent you and that CEO tells you that the GPL has never been reviewed by a lawyer, he can just laugh.

Same Jim Kartes?

[AndroidCat]

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 ..

Re:Same Jim Kartes?

[biglig2]

It is the same, it is mentioned in TFA.

Re:Same Jim Kartes?

[AndroidCat]

Yes, and of course when I read back through, it jumped right out at me, even with the same link. D'oh!

Re:Same Jim Kartes?

[djdanlib]

For those who don't know, and there's nothing wrong with not knowing this...

Giclee is a fancy way of saying "ink-jet". Usually it refers to high quality inkjet, like Iris, but it can mean any kind.

Art snobs sometimes use it because it sounds foreign and sophisticated... but it's really just another name for something we all know.

Offtopic, yes. Educational? Maybe.

Re:Same Jim Kartes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, I live on Maui where Kartes has been known as a prick and wannabe tyrant for a very long time. Guaranteed he doesn't understand the technology issues surrounding the cherryos. Its been rumored that he has also abused the artists he represents and sells prints for, both openly by charging extreme comissions and by possibly infringing copyrights.

There are many people here (on Maui) I've met over many years who would love to see him get a legal kick in the teeth.

Sue the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

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 :-)

Re:Sue the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

ROTFLMFAO!

very interesting ...

Re:Sue the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Golden Globes are done by the Hollywood Foreign Press, not the MPAA.

Re:Sue the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since customers of commercial copyright infringers can in turn be sued for copyright infringement

I was not aware of this. I would appreciate any reference you can give.

I am especially dubious about the truth of your claim given that during the SCO-Linux fiasco it was pointed out many times (and few cases have been picked over by as many people) that customers of Linux distributors would not be liable.

Outsourcing aspect

[gatkinso]

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?

Re:Outsourcing aspect

[tb3]

According to the article, the outsourcing company was supplied with the PearPC source by Arben. The fact that they did not question its use is a much larger issue that needs to be addressed.

Re:Outsourcing aspect

[Enigma_Man]

It's still up to the "parent" company to verify by whatever means that the outsourced code is kosher, because they're releasing it as their own. If they were just reselling something, it would be different, but it's the fact that it's their product, regardless of if they outsourced or not.

-Jesse

Re:Outsourcing aspect

[rainwater]

The outsourcing excuse is used immediately by offending companies 90% of the time. However, it is only an excuse as the company is still held responsible since they are the ones distributing the software.

Re:Outsourcing aspect

[Antique Geekmeister]

Not possible. These thieves were informed quite some time ago that the code was GPL code, with documentation. You can't pretend your software was stolen by a shady programmer when the evidence is in your face that way, any more than you can pretend you didn't mean to drive drunk when the airbag drives your beer bottle into your eye.

Re:Outsourcing aspect

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me that if you are a Big International Company buying rights to software, you would be expected to use due diligence to make sure you are doing business with an upright company that has rights to sell you that license. If one does not, you would probably be held liable for failing to due so.

Could they be act 221 leaches as well

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What a sec...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:What a sec...

[Senor_Programmer]

perhaps they are not the same persons!

Re:What a sec...

[davewalthall]

Because that's the slashdot way: * Remember that you can't call it theft, you must call it copyright violation. * There are different levels of copyright violations. For example, violating the GPL is a Bad Thing, while downloading songs is an ok copyright violation. Why? Because people who post to slashdot aren't likely to violate the GPL, but ARE likely to steal^H^H^H^H^Hviolate other copyrights.

Re:What a sec...

[Seanasy]

It's not contradictory. It's about more rights,

• the GPL gives more rights than standard copyright allows,
• downloading media takes more rights than copyright allows.

Give a little, take a little. Seems fair to me.

Re:What a sec...

[labratuk]

I'm sure this will probably be labeled Troll,

That's probably because you're trolling.

Re:What a sec...

[drteknikal]

because software is free, while movies and music want to be...

Re:What a sec...

[argent]

Because people who post to slashdot [...] ARE likely to steal^H^H^H^H^Hviolate other copyrights.

Nice insinuation. How do you like this one?

"People who work for the RIAA ARE likely to pad their expense accounts and double-dip by claiming the expense on their own tax return."

Re:What a sec...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm sure this will probably be labeled Troll"

As it should be. This question has come up and has been answered in many GPL related discussions on Slashdot before.

Since it would be impolite to suggest that you are either lazy or a complete retard, one must assume you are indeed a troll.

Re:What a sec...

[Antaeus Feldspar]

It's a logical position if I look at the net effects.

Suppose I rip a Gentle Giant album to MP3 and put it up on KaZaA. Suppose that ten people download those MP3s. Suppose that only one in ten of those people are honest enough to pay for the things they download, once they discover that yes, they are enjoyable and will be a good purchase.

Net effect: The record label sells another album it wouldn't have otherwise.

Now let's look at the effect of a GPL violation: Scambag Software steals code from free software project YATLA and sells it as a commercial product, denying its origin. Scambag's customers are unlikely to be aware that the people who actually deserve to be compensated for the use of the code are the YATLA developers, or that the compensation requested is simply compliance with the terms of the GPL.

Net effect: Scambag takes money, none of which they deserve. The YATLA developers get ripped off. Even assuming that each and every one of Scambag's customers is an honest sort who would pay the real developers the real cost even if it wasn't much cheaper -- they don't get the chance.

Those of us who are okay with filesharing music and movies usually are because we believe that most people are basically honest (we know there are exceptions) and that allowing people to try a free sample before they buy is a sound strategy even for products like music and movies where classical theory assumes that no one will ever legally purchase an item they already possess unless the one they possess can wear out or be used up. But when the GPL is violated and the credit is stolen, any innate honesty people have has no effect.

Re:What a sec...

[shutdown -p now]

Redistributing copyrighted music without charging for it makes for more freedom for the others. Redistributing GPL-derived works for money and without source code makes for less freedom.

ShoutCast Usage

[ranson]

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?

Re:Join in the supposed slander and libel

[smittyoneeach]

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?

GNU GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:GNU GPL

[Quill_28]

Shut up Stallman

Re:GNU GPL

[maxwell demon]

GNU/Stallman!

Re:GNU GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU/GGNU/NGNU/U/GNU/SGNU/tGNU/aGNU/lGNU/lGNU/mGNU/ aGNU/nGNU/!

Re:GNU GPL

[nametaken]

Ha ha! Exactly what I was thinking!

Dick, we love yah man, but you gotta lay off!

OK, Everyone pony up their customer addresses...

[HunterWare]

Man, his list is going to be HUGE.

Heh

[Moraelin]

"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.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

So lemme get this straight: he actually _plans_ to break copyright law, and is shocked that people would not take to it kindly?

No. He plans to use both GPL and non GPL software and only wants to provide source for the GPL software. Some GPL fans can be overzealous about these things and may accuse us of using GPL code in closed applications.

So you're totally missing the point. He doesn't want the GPL obsessives to pressure him to release code that he has no obligation to release.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is all these arguments kind of prove his point. Nobody is acutally reading what you said in the first place, only that "you need to open all your source".

Re:Heh

[Moraelin]

Actually, yes, I've carefully read what he wrote in the first place, and it basically boils down to "but our boss is affraid we'll ge flamed"... when so far the only ones flamed were clear cut cases of GPL violations. There was nothing "perceived" or "slight" about, say, CherryOS, just a clear cut case of violating copyright law.

So his boss is affraid of... what?

Of falling in that category? Well, that's very very easy to avoid. Noone accused, say, PGCC of being a GPL violation of GCC, because, surprise, PGCC was GPLed too. Apple also wasn't accused of anything when they based Safari on Konqueror, because, again, they did release the changed sources.

Of being accused of violating the GPL for the clearly distinct programs that aren't based on GPL sources? Well, that's again very easy to avoid. Just make those programs very clearly distinct programs. I don't think anyone accused, say, SuSE or Mandrake of GPL violations for including proprietary software (e.g., ATI or NVidia drivers or RealPlayer) on the same CD with the rest of their Linux distro.

So all that remains is one of the following:

1. Either his boss is utterly retarded, or

2. His boss was just looking for an excuse to avoid GPL anyway, and grasped at the nearest straw, or

3. His boss was actually planning to be in the category that gets flamed or sued over GPL violations, meaning the ones actually violate it.

Take your own pick there.

Re:Heh

[dotmax]

How did you get from "mistake" or "percieved mistake" to "PLANS [emph. added] to break copyright"??

It's easy to say [paraphrased] "if someone posts bullshit, just point them to the truth and that's the end of it", but a cursory analysis of human nature, group dynamics and online behavior suggests that ... you don't know what you're talking about.

The POINT being that if people are afraid to touch GPL because it looks like a third-rail risk, then they won't use it.

Your response, "Make a mistake :== planned IP theft" pretty much validates the boss's position.

QED.

.max

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more complicated than that.

What about applications that execute others? What about if one of our programmers accidentally includes propritery code in a GPL application? What if we dual licence our own software so we can share a library between a GPL portion and a non GPL portion? What if we implement the same API as a piece fo free software for compatibility purposes? How about rewriting some of the GPL portions as proprietry code?

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

So all that remains is one of the following:

You missed one:

4. He's a troll, and his boss never said anything at all.

Re:Heh

[Moraelin]

"What about applications that execute others?"

That's simple: you don't have to GPL those, if they are distinct programs.

I've already given examples where that was no problem whatsoever. But just for the sake of repeating myself: E.g., WinCVS being a clearly separate program that just executes the command-line CVS was never a problem, and never flamed for it.

"What about if one of our programmers accidentally includes propritery code in a GPL application?"

You have, obviously, a copyright violation. Same as if the same program used it in any other way, and in any other program, without having a license to do that.

"What if we dual licence our own software so we can share a library between a GPL portion and a non GPL portion?"

If it's only your own software, you can do whatever you please with it. There are several pieces of software out there with dual licenses.

"What if we implement the same API as a piece fo free software for compatibility purposes?"

If it's 100% your own implementation, it's your own software, you can license it as you see fit.

E.g., Motif was never required to have the same license as Lesstif, just because Lesstif implemented the same functions. E.g., Intel's C compiler ICC never had to be GPL'ed just because it does the same thing as GCC.

"How about rewriting some of the GPL portions as proprietry code?"

That's very clear too: If you rewrite pieces of a GPL'ed program, then those pieces must be GPL'ed too.

That's actually the only case that so far that's resulted in flammage and/or lawsuits: people take some GPL'ed program, change/add a few functions, and then act surprised when they're asked to open that code. "Nooo, but it's our own code! You have no right to it!" Well, tough luck. If you modified something that was originally GPL'ed, you can't put a more restrictive license than GPL on it.

That's the "price" I was talking about: the price to have that program available for you to modify in the first place, is that any changes you make to it will also be GPL'ed. Failure to do so isn't a "slight mistake", it's a clear copyright violation.

But again, that does not extend to the case where we're talking separate programs which merely execute each other. E.g., if you modified a GPL'ed program to be able to use plugins, you only need to GPL that. Any clearly separate plugins you then write for it, and which clearly aren't based on any of the GPL'ed code (including the headers!), do not need to be GPLed.

Re:Heh

[drac]

I don't think the assumption of planned theft is a fair one.

I suspect that the situation might simply be this: that the boss (if he exists, and if the story is at all accurate) was interested in using GPL software relatively casually.

One should never use other people's code casually. If the idea of being careful scared him, then he was right to abstain from use- and we should be glad that he did.

Re:Heh

[91degrees]

Yes, we know what the legal situation with all of these is. The point is, does the entire GPL community know?

And by reimplementing portions, I was talking about reimplementing an entire application that forms part of a suite. Typically a plug in replacement will look a lot like a GPL violation.

Re:Heh

[Belial6]

I would have to assume number 1, due to the fact that the worst flaming happens to companies that do NOT release their source code, and have either used, or been precieved as having used GPL source in their product. If his boss's goal was to avoid the flaming, and he did exactly the opposite of what could avoid it, his boss has some serious mental deficencies.

Re:Heh

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

I'll again state I don't really agree with the premise of the GP post, but see my other reply in this thread to see how a simple and honest mistake "could" happen.

Once you've read that, you should consider what I think is the mostly likely reason a "boss" would be worried.

There can be "risks" associatied with doing OSS. Most managers are a bit risk adverse. Its easy to say they are stupid, just don't get it, etc but that doesn't really cover it. My previous post is just one simple sample of these risks, but there are certainly others. Any "boss" needs to try to look at these decisions from all sides without emotion leading them in a predefined direction (at least that is how it should work). For a "boss", it can be hard to quantify the benefits of making a project OSS. What is the "good-will" worth? Will be get more publicity? If so what is that worth? The positives of OSS can be a bit hard to quantify.

On the other hand, the "risks" of OSS are pretty easy to quantify. What would legal fees likely be from a GPL fight? What would the cost be if we have to pull the product while removing GPLed code? Then there are more difficult "risk" related questions as well. What would the bad publicilty cost us if we are found to have GPLed code in our closed source code?

These aren't easy questions and I can see how some people could choose against OSS. That said, I think personally think OSS would be worth it for most companies (I don't think it always makes sense) and it would be great for everyone. I think with a little care "risks" can be mitigated and the good name you make for your company would be WAY worth it. However, I do understand why this can be a difficult decision and I wouldn't call someone "retarded" for making either decision.

In small companies there is less risk as the "boss" can more closely monitor what is happening. In larger companies there may be more "risk". There ARE tons of variables which should be considered when making a decision and depending on the situation (company/product/customers/etc) it would be hard to fault some for being cautious. Obviously, some huge companies like IBM are successfully doning this and hopefully this will lead others to do the same. However, I don't expect it overnight and I won't insult those who choose not to for the time being.

Re:Heh

[Moraelin]

Let's put it like this: if your application also has every single buffer overflow, exploit and other bug of the "re-implemented" application, yes, some of us will very much suspect code theft.

That's usually one tell-tale sign of such "re-implementation". A _real_ clean room implementation of a API, file format, etc, will have its own bugs. Code theft won't.

If, for example, running the exact same buffer overflow on it executes the exact same malicious code, it says not only that both forgot to check buffers. It also says that both "accidentally" chose the exact same buffer size _and_ had it in the exact same place on the stack. Typically meaning that the "re-implemented" function had the same variables and in the same order.

That it all is one big coincidence is a _very_ hard to swallow proposition, if it happens in more than one function. Doubly so if the binary code also looks awfully like a duplicate.

That it's a clean room bug-for-bug re-implementation is also a very hard to swallow argument. To have actually tested so thoroughly that you found all the bugs on your own, when each of them takes researcher teams months to find, is already improbable. To then have deliberately re-implemented every single critical exploit would be such extreme stupidity, that it's hard to believe.

Basically, let's put it like this: "but we actually re-implemented in months 100% of what a major suite took _years_ to implement and debug" is a _very_ tempting defence for all the code thiefs out there. However _if_ that's actually the case, it's a very very easy case to make.

In fact, if that's actually the case, chances are you won't get accused in the first place. Sure, some people might have their suspicions anyway, but the hell only really breaks loose when they do have signifficant proof that there's no way in hell that that's a clean room re-implementation.

And even then _if_ the code is really different, it still is easy to prove without releasing your code to the world at large: just get a third party, under NDA and all, to compare the code. There are even tools which will compare a checksum of each line of code for duplicates, without anyone actually seeing your code.

So you're telling me that someone got unjustly accused and just couldn't do any of the above to disprove it? Sorry, I don't buy it.

Re:Heh

[91degrees]

We could do. Or we can simply not touch GPL code with a 10 foot barge pole, and not have to bother to do any of that to satisfy a community 99% of whom have no actual stake in the code in the first place.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The field is stupid. Bits can be duplicated freely and cost nothing. I pirate VS because it's a good tool and it allows me to develop MORE free software. More free software AND less 1 VS sale = less licensing market = less stupid big capitalist corporations (you know the ones with the patents) = less pollution = more Earth = more good!

Re:Heh

[Ur@eus]

You are sounding like you think that is a loss for authors of GPL code. Its not.

Re:Heh

[Moraelin]

First of all, *shrug* I never said you should go GPL. I'm not advocating that GPL is one-size-fits-all or anything. It isn't.

And, in fact, I can appreciate the honesty in an attitude that basically says "we don't want to GPL our code, so we don't use GPL'ed code." That _is_ indeed one of the honest choices for any license: if you don't like it, don't use it. You have my respect then.

The ones I do have a problem with is the ones who go the "maybe they won't notice theft" route, and then the "maybe we'll scare them with lame legal threats" route.

But just for the sake of repeating the obvious, you're missing that point that in order to end up having to do that, you'd have to be a thief to start with. The chances that an 100,000+ line of code program would just accidentally end up identical with another program, are a joke.

And that we _are_ in a thread about a group that's notorious for repeatedly violating GPL and then trying to work their way out by legal threats.

So, let's put it into context. Basically, this whole sub-thread is about advocating... what? Basically, "but the community should fuck off, and leave the individual developpers undefended, so corporate lawyers can maybe scare them into submission"? I can see how that would be a corporate wet dream, but it's not gonna happen.

In fact, a bit of flaming is the least of worries from that community: it's repeatedly shown before that it can back a copyright infringement lawsuit too.

Re:Heh

[91degrees]

Some people seem to disagree. there are sections of the community that would like everyone to use the GPL.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

he actually _plans_ to break copyright law

I didn't read it that way. I read it as him accounting for the possibility of unintentional mistakes. For example, using a GPLed library for one of their GPLed applications, and then a developer using it again for one of their proprietary applications without thinking. Like it or not, that's a possibility even if you have the best intentions.

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.

Did you not notice the grief Apple got, even though they publish all their changes to KHTML?

That it caused someone to think twice about theft?

Cyopright infringement, not theft.

Re:Join in the supposed slander and libel

[FidelCatsro]

Perhaps i should be quiet i dont fancy another "Bya of Pgis" invasion by a bunch of angry Plagerists(MXS Are plagerists..)

Uh oh

[jalefkowit]

Drunkenbatman is at it again...

Well, that would explain why Robin's been in the shower all day muttering "won't come off... so dirty..."

Even more LGPL violations than GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Even more LGPL violations than GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought SCO owned those header files?

Re:Even more LGPL violations than GPL

[keytoe]

If that is accurate, then there's no reason to have the LGPL at all as it functions exactly like the GPL. How do you use a library without the headers? Do you have to write your own headers for the library? Without peeking?

When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not. Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library. The threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.

This is essentially reserving rights to catch people who wrap an LGPL library in their own library, then link to their own library to get around the license (among other similarly tricky things).

The gist of the LGPL is that your application should be able to work without the library - otherwise it's pretty much a derivative work. However, "The threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law".

Re:Even more LGPL violations than GPL

[shutdown -p now]

LGPL Section 5 Paragraphs 3-4:

When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not. Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library. The threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.

If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline functions (ten lines or less in length), then the use of the object file is unrestricted, regardless of whether it is legally a derivative work. (Executables containing this object code plus portions of the Library will still fall under Section 6.)

If the library you link to is shared (so your binary doesn't contain "this object code plus portions of the Library" - this is only the case with static libraries), the resulting executable is not encumbered by GPL.

Re:Even more LGPL violations than GPL

[Ben Hutchings]

It's arguable whether distribution of an executable that merely uses interface definitions and dynamically links to a library requires permission from the library's copyright holder; if not, then the LGPL provisions are moot. Having said that, if the executable incorporates inline functions or macro-expanded code from the library, I can see that that may well create a derived work (in US law) and so require permission. (Regrettably the term "derived work" is not defined in UK law, which might present a problem for enforcement of copyright on GPL'd or LGPL'd software here.)

Note that while the C library (glibc) is under LGPL, "runtime libraries" normally refers to more fundamental libraries that compiled programs may implicitly depend on. The C and C++ runtime libraries for GCC are licenced under the "Runtime GPL" which basically allows unrestricted binary distribution while maintaining copyleft on source distribution.

Re:Join in the supposed slander and libel

[harrkev]

That is what the Copyright Commandos are for. They are a special branch of the military.

It's all about intent and opinion

[adzoox]

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!

Re:It's all about intent and opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stealing code and claiming it's yours is quite different from downloading a song and listening to it."

The difference is that most people are more interested in getting music witout paying than in publishing somebody else's code. The rest is just an excuse.

Re:It's all about intent and opinion

[MrMickS]

The difference is symantic. It is true that you aren't breaking copyright by downloading a song and listening it. There is a breach of copyright going on though by the person sharing the music with you if they don't have rights to distribute it. In both cases, there is a breach in copyright.

Re:It's all about intent and opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if you go out and sell said song at ANY price - there is the violation of the download.

Zero dollars is still a price. Eh?

Re:It's all about intent and opinion

[fishbowl]

"Now, if you go out and sell said song at ANY price - there is the violation of the download.
"

The violation is in the distribution, not in the acquisition. But the direction you're going (copyright for music is effectively the same idiom as copyright under the GPL). Works better than cars and beers analogies.

Re:It's all about intent and opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is symantic. It is true that you aren't breaking copyright by downloading a song and listening it. There is a breach of copyright going on though by the person sharing the music with you if they don't have rights to distribute it. In both cases, there is a breach in copyright.

That's true in the same way that smoking a joint and gunning down 16 people in a McDonalds are both felonies.

Some of the differences:

1) the RIAA does not produce original work and the people on this board DO defend the rights of the artists. In many cases (but not all, Metallica being a good example of the that), those authors are happy to see their fans sharing their work. The RIAA is the opposite, they don't care whether anyone actually has an opportunity to enjoy the work, as long as they get their dollar.

2) As proof of that last statement, the works controlled by the RIAA are being distributed under increasingly stringent restrictions for more and more money (which the author sees very little of). Works provided under the GPL are nearly unrestricted the only requirements being that the copyright notice is unmodified and that the source be made available.

3) In some countries (mine for example), the music industry has reached an accomodation with the taxpayers: downloading is not a copyright violation. Again, this plays to an "industry" that produces nothing but legal documents: they get the money without having to actually produce a product. No such accomodation has been reached with respect to GPL because the freedom of the license makes such an agreement absurd.

In summary, if the difference between the two is semantic ("symantic" is what corporate security guys get from too many AV updates), then RIAA should just distribute under the GPL. If that seems absurd, maybe the difference is a little more significant.

Re:It's all about intent and opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealing is stealing, rationalize it all you want.

If you sneak into a concert is it stealing?

If you sneak into a theater is it stealing?

If you download pirated code and use it, but not very often is it stealing?

If you download pirated music and listen to it is it stealing?

--Grow up.

Re:It's all about intent and opinion

[shark72]

You are absolutely correct -- different mediums have different ways in which the copyright can be violated in a meaningful way. With GPL software, of course, since you're giving it away for free, the big threat is somebody claiming ownership of it. With music, for which the distribution is often controlled by the copyright holder, the biggest threat is copying without permission.

Similarly, if you are a sculptor, you don't need to worry about somebody claiming they sculpted it, nor do you typically need to worry about somebody making another sculpture just like it. What sculptors need to worry about is people using a photograph of the sculpture in an unauthorized manner.

Different media, different laws. We all know that. This is a cop-out answer.

Can somebody please address the real question: why do many Slashdotters think that it's more of an affront to violate the rights of a software developer than it is to violate the rights of a musician?

I think the reason is that the typical Slashdotter is much more likely to be a coder -- and perhaps has even worked on a GPL project -- than they are likely to be a musician who relies on sales of their music to feed their family. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being empathetic with your peers, but implying that violating the rights of the musician who sells his work is more acceptable than violating the rights of the programmer who releases GPL code is simply unfair. We are all supposedly equal here.

"Most people who feel filesharing of songs is ok - also feel as if it's promotion for the artist."

If the artist freely distributes their music (as many do), then this is cool. If they would rather that you not copy their music without paying for it, then "it's a promotion for the artist" is a self-serving excuse. Respecting the artists' rights is best -- treat others as you'd have them treat you.

"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!"

That's great to hear, but it does not require (or justify) making a copy of a musician's music without their permission.

Libel/Slander

[StikyPad]

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?

Re:Libel/Slander

[m50d]

In the UK at least, you have to be able to prove every single statement to the standard required in a court of law - i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt. You can have some pretty good evidence - but if it isn't good enough to convict someone on (think OJ), then you're still libelling.

Re:Libel/Slander

[iabervon]

The US has a much lower standard for statements. The UK version is a bit flaky, since it would mean that anyone found innocent of a crime had been slandered by the prosecution in the court records. A more reasonable standard would be probable cause, which is where the police are supposed to start making statements about you.

In any case, it's generally considered impractical to prove libel or slander in the US. In practice, things only get as far as lying sources getting discreditted outside of court, which generally means journalists losing their jobs.

Re:Libel/Slander

[bendelo]

I thought UK libel/slander cases required proof of a civil standard, ie on the balance of probabilty?

Harming OSS by making your boss respect licences ?

[file-exists-p]

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!

My stuff

[eventhorizon5]

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

Re:My stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Props to you. good work.

Re:My stuff

[eventhorizon5]

If you want to mirror my analysis archive, get it here:

http://www.drunkenblog.com/mxs/mxs_evidence.tar.gz

(i can't host it on my webserver yet due to legal issues - these originated from it though)

The archive can be browsed here:
http://www.drunkenblog.com/mxs/

Drunkenbatman said that there's over 20 mirrors of it, so I'll try to find out what those are.

-eventhorizon

Re:My stuff

[WillerZ]

The synergy there was a joy to behold.

Re:My stuff

[rmart]

So wait a sec.. you downloaded a pirated version of this software to reverse-engineer it?!

I am truly shocked!

Re:My stuff

[drunkenbatman]

Ryan's heart was in the right place, but if you could please use one of the many mirrors to both get it and possibly create your own, we can hopefully avoid the server being destroyed again... :)

Re:What a sec... Flawed Assumption

[homerito]

You are assuming that the people that writes GPL code and defend it also illegaly downloads music and movies.

How can you support that?

sound sliek he is winning

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:sound sliek he is winning

[WhiteWolf666]

That's the problem with most law.

Think about how many copyright violations of business software are in *businesses* out there.

Think about how we have a group of storm troopers (the BSA) dedicated to eradicate that, who have almost unlimited budgets.

The GPL is enforcable. Much like most other licenses.

The problem is that nearly anything is difficult to enforce in the legal system, EVEN IF you are a huge company.

Let alone a small group (or solo) of underfunded developers.

Re:sound sliek he is winning

[Anonymous Coward]

"The problem with the GPL is not that it is unenforcable, but rather that nobdy has the time and or money to enforce it."

But any such statement would have to be true of copyright law in general. Some people have success pursuing copyright infringement cases.

Re:sound sliek he is winning

[Anonymous Coward]

The law grinds slowly, but exceedingly fine.

Contact Information

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Join in the supposed slander and libel

[Almond Tree]

Ahh ... Kinda reminds me of Bill Gates in the early days. Those were the good 'ole days.

Letters from the lame.

[supabeast!]

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.

Re:Letters from the lame.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a tip for you. /. is not a phpBB. [i][/i] means shit.

Goddamn "web bulletin boards" making even fewer people able to use HTML...

Great article

[strider44]

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?

Re:Great article

[EmagGeek]

Yeah, here's a comprehensive list of all of the open source projects that haven't been ripped off:

Pirates on All Sides

[ChaoticCoyote]

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.

GPL violations are rampant; companies know they can get away with it, and it certainly saves time and money. I've worked in companies where the first solution to a technical problem is a Google or Freshmeat search. And I've quit a high-paying job over (in part) the use of GPL'd code in a commercial, closed-source application.

These GPL-violating companies use logic very similar to that of music pirates: In their view, they're not hurting anyone. Do the companies reflect the general lack of ethics in society, or did they create an ethical void by their own selfish actions? I tend toward the latter explanation, but it still leaves us with theives complaining about bandits.

Respect breeds respect, folks. If you want a better society that respects the GPL, you need to respect other people's rights as well.

Re:Pirates on All Sides

[Slashcrap]

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

Re:Pirates on All Sides

[ChaoticCoyote]

Flamebait, eh? :)

Can you please point out where what I've said isn't true?

Re:Pirates on All Sides

[ChaoticCoyote]

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.

Re:Pirates on All Sides

[Anonymous Coward]

It was insulting but that doesn't preclude the fact that it was:

a) intelligent
b) refuted your post

Re:Pirates on All Sides

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Pirates on All Sides

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Pirates on All Sides

[DavidTC]

And, while we're at it, most OSS supporters would love it if illegal copying of MS software stopped completely and immediately.

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.

Re:Pirates on All Sides

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL.

Re:Pirates on All Sides

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Pirates on All Sides

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Pirates on All Sides

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Pirates on All Sides

[Travelsonic]

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.

1 slightly contradicts #2, because there is legal music that was not ment to be paid for. (Think Dmusic.com

What the hell?!?!

[oscartheduck]

Slashdot covering a news story? Weird.

Hey, at least it has been covered before, though, right?

civil vs criminal penalties

[gklnx]

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?

What they hell are these guys doing now?!

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Pleeeeezzz....Sue the MPAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Straw man?

[Moraelin]

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.

Re:Straw man?

[dotmax]

How _does_ one make that kind of a "slight mistake" unintentionally? No, seriously, now you got me really curious.

I think that there are two perspectives here: manager/boss vs. coder. I imagine a boss could have quite a bit of fear of getting crosswise w/o knowing, maybe from a corner-cutting (or pissed off) programmer or through a flawed review process As a coder, i'd imagine it's pretty clear whether or not you're complying.

As to the specific mechanism of how, i'm out of my depth there other than to note that there an infinitude of ways to make mistakes in most endeavors.

I also suspect there's fear of the unknown on the boss's part -- ooh, those bbs things were full of mean people -- perceptual selection error. Kinda like introducing someone to usenet by way of talk.politics.*

.max

Re:Straw man?

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

OK, to begin I think articles like this are good and people should go after those breaking these licenses. Also, I don't agree with the original post saying this is harming OSS

However I'll play devils advocate, to show you how this type of mistake "could" happen. Consider this scenerio (which in my experiece is quite common). A company decides to create some products as open source while keeping others closed source. The company uses a common code repository so each product doesn't have to re-invent the wheel for common tasks. So for a simple example, lets say a developer is working on the open source product and needs a method for converting HTML to PDF. This develop grabs the code for this from an existing GPLed project. This makes sense this project he is working on will be GPLed anyway. Now this developer puts this into the companies common source repository since it could be useful in the future.

Now a developer working on the closed source projects has the need to convert HTML to PDF. Like he should, he first checks the common code repository to see if this already exists. Sure enough, he finds the code for this and puts it into the closed source app. He has just committed a very simple unitential mistake which violates the GPL of the project the code originally came from.

Now obviously, you should have corporate policies reguarding what goes into such a repository, or mark any GPLed code as such so this mistake won't happen, but it really just takes simple (and inocent) lapse of memory, procedure, etc to cause this type of issue.

Not really agreeing with the overall sentiment of the previous posts, but I could see this happening.

Re:Straw man?

[telbij]

I also suspect there's fear of the unknown on the boss's part -- ooh, those bbs things were full of mean people -- perceptual selection error. Kinda like introducing someone to usenet by way of talk.politics.*

And speaking of GPL paranoia, any programmer can steal GPL code whether or not his boss knows about it. So really the boss is neutered and has no control of the situation, regardless of whatever 'decree' he might feel self-important enough to make about the use of GPLed code.

Re:Straw man?

[GSloop]

And if and when this happens, and the company is contacted about an apparent GPL violation, the solution, quick and easy would be to review the issue, find it WAS a code violation, explain how it happened, and remove the offending code.

Provided you are nice and polite while removing the code, I expect that virtually anyone enforcing the GPL would be reasonably decent in this case.

So, even if a violation occured, there are pretty easy and straight-forward ways to avoid a flame fest and legal entanglements

Sure, they'll be embarrassing and you'll have to tell all your clients and fix/replace the GPL'd code - but if you didn't do your due dilligence, it's kinda the way it goes.

Frankly, I have an incredibly hard time seeing where a *commercial* software dev shop could let this kind of thing happen - but I'll just assume as you say, it "is quite common."

Cheers,
Greg

Re:Straw man?

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Yep, your right. I've never heard of a OSS project raising a stink if you make a good faith effert to correct the problem. Its just the pricks like CherryOS which rightfully feel the brunt of the OSS communities wrath ;-)

Also, I'm not sure if my "is quite common" statement may have been misleading. I'm NOT saying GPLed code getting into a closed source app by the method described above is common. It may have happened, but if it has I don't know about it. I was just saying companies doing both open and closed source is common and companies having a central code repository is common.

Based on that, I was just trying to show that it *could* happen without evil intentions. The post I was replying to didn't think it could happen by accident and I just wanted to point out a way it *could* happen based on a fairly common practices many companies use (even though it wasn't done on purpose).

Re:Straw man?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

That's a bit like arguing that it's impossible to accidentally lose control of a vehicle and kill somebody because Osama Bin Laden obviously didn't order the 9-11 attacks by accident.

Of course it's possible that a company can have infringe upon the GPL without the managers wanting to. Example? Practically every Linux distribution shipped KDE when the Qt license conflicted with the GPL. Were they intentionally committing copyright infringement?

Brain, meet logic

[FreeUser]

It gets really ugly when the GPL is violated, but the good thing is that once violated, the GPL is no longer even an issue, its a clear-cut US Copyright violation.

And for non-US people this would mean...? ...that it is a violation of non-US copyright law (in probably every country on the planet outside of perhaps Iran, North Korea, and Utah). If the license is revoked, the local copyright statutes take effect. In virtually every country on the planet, that means you lose the right to copy or distribute the product.

This wasn't exactly a huge leap in logic to figure out, much less rocket science.

If deliberate... did they just GPL their own app?!

[Dogtanian]

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.

$+ Years Later and Little to Show...

[Anonymous Coward]

for your efforts. You've undoubtedly spent weeks' over the 4 years and they're still selling your software?

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.

Not offtopic!

[Slashcrap]

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.

Re:If deliberate... did they just GPL their own ap

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

These MXS guys...

[Anonymous Coward]

...should team up with the Phantom console chaps. They both provide with chuckles and laughs, but together they ought to be pure comedy gold!

looks like the site is out, but what of profit?

[UlfGabe]

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.

OT: what blog software is that?

[apachetoolbox]

Anyone know what backend he's running? I'm shopping around for good blog software right now.

Re:OT: what blog software is that?

[Yaa 101]

dunno, but get drupal...

Re:OT: what blog software is that?

[ExodusMachine]

looks like Movable Type

Re:OT: what blog software is that?

[Colol]

Mr. Drunken Batman uses ye olde Movable Type for all his blogging needs.

Re:OT: what blog software is that?

[mindflayer.net]

He's been debating moving to Wordpress for a while...

From my viewpoint

[phorm]

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"

This author is as bad a MoG

[stry_cat]

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.

Then explain this.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:If deliberate... did they just GPL their own ap

[Dogtanian]

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!)

Really?!? Did you READ either article?

[spun]

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.

Re:Really?!? Did you READ either article?

[stry_cat]

Yes I did. Did you?? Crystal's email address is her private address.

Re:Really?!? Did you READ either article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Crystal's email is on her fucking contact page. So much for private.

Re:Really?!? Did you READ either article?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about all this private data?

"We also know that she was originally Crystal Johnson, and graduated from High School in Maui in 1995. Strangely enough, from that school we can also gather that she's Episcopalian, which is only useful for the home-trivia version of DrunkenBlog which will be out sometime next month. If you'll notice on the high school site, Crystal Johnson links to crystalkai.com which has had it's content down, but not before I made sure to make a mirror"

FBI involvement

[rdenisc]

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] ?

Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Drive away every possible helpful commercial endevor from Linux.

Keep it up folks! Your doing great!

I think it's time for one last FOSS project, produce a completely (L)GPL encomberance free API layer to Linux that actually allows people to write software for the OS without you license Natzi's constantly calling out the dogs on anyone that, God fobid, tries to develop a commercial application or hardware for Linux!

REUSED TROLL (Read for evidence)

[crawdaddy]

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:

Here is this same post being made on /. in 2003.

Here is a reader's response on CNET to a story in 2004.

Re:REUSED TROLL (Read for evidence)

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my, mod parent up!

"Drunkenblog" isn't much of an authority

[Animats]

Anybody who calls themself "drunkenblog" isn't going to be taken seriously.

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".

Re:"Drunkenblog" isn't much of an authority

[mindflayer.net]

Did you read the freaking article? He references that work. Did you read about the code theft? I know, I know, I am responding to a troll, but guys like this tick me off.

Re:"Drunkenblog" isn't much of an authority

[eventhorizon5]

I'm the owner of Tliquest.net, and me and the drunkenblog guy collaborated on this issue for some time now. Most of my research on the tliquest site had to be pulled due to legal threats (I don't have any legal support at this time), but he could handle being sued. About the Java player, there has been lots of speculation on what they have used. I'll post my research log right here, so you can see what still needs to be found (if we need to; unless MXS somehow comes clean):

From primary archive,
http://www.tliquest.net/mxs
There are 20 supposed mirrors of my site, and I'll find out where they are soon.
---------
Listing of projects that VX30 has taken code from:

XviD 0.9.2 (all VX30 versions use this Xvid version)
Media Player Classic (VX30 live also uses MPC's webserver)
LAME (old 2004 version used version 3.93)
Possibly Filezilla (found a whole bunch of error messages from it)
Nero Freeware Advanced Audio (AAC) Decoder
Liba52
Ogg Vorbis code (it contains libVorbis, but that is under a BSD license; they haven't given credit, so it's a violation)
but - the vorbis streaming code seems to be part of another non-Xiph app

What I still don't know:
-origination of Xvid encoder frontend they used for the original VX30 and later versions
-origination of audio/video streamer server they used
-origination of Java-based decoder client
-which ones of these make up the Live Server app
-which app the threaded Ogg Vorbis code is from
---------

-eventhorizon

Is DrunkenBatman as bad as Maureen O'Gara?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

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.ht m

Re:Is DrunkenBatman as bad as Maureen O'Gara?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA

His wife owns one of the businesses involved in this shell scheme. Since that was mentioned several times, I think you're probably making the part up about her religion. Anyways, Maureen is doing what she does as a journalist, not a guy on his blog.

Re:Is DrunkenBatman as bad as Maureen O'Gara?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read the article? Where does he get off posting shit like this? This seems to be quite inappropriate. Leave peoples wives personal lives out of this, even if she owned a related company why is this ethical to post?

"We also know that she was originally Crystal Johnson, and graduated from High School in Maui in 1995. Strangely enough, from that school we can also gather that she's Episcopalian, which is only useful for the home-trivia version of DrunkenBlog which will be out sometime next month. If you'll notice on the high school site, Crystal Johnson links to crystalkai.com which has had it's content down, but not before I made sure to make a mirror:"

And let's talk about blaming the community

[Moraelin]

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?

What community?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Join in the supposed slander and libel

[Syberghost]

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.

Having read the article...

[Phleg]

Anyone posting before noon didn't RTFA =P

Re:Linux users are just as guilty of WHAT

[eeyore-on-thorazine]

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

Can't read the article

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Can't read the article

[jpowers]

Most of the time you're signing up with a smaller provider and it isn't obvious that two or three up the chain you'd find a company like ev1. What is your problem with them, exactly? If I find any of my stuff hosted with them, I'd like to know what I'm into.

Re:Can't read the article

[Anonymous Coward]

They helped SCO by being one of the few companies stupid enough to support their evil.

If you support evil then you deserve to be punished.

Coral Cache...

[Ayanami Rei]

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! :-)

Re:Coral Cache...

[Knuckles]

Thanks to you too :)

Re:If deliberate... did they just GPL their own ap

[stevewahl]

This is Slashdot, IANAL, etc., but: If a company modifies a GPL program, distributes it in violation of the license, and is completely aware of what they are doing, the company still owns the copyright on their modifications.

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.

Re:If deliberate... did they just GPL their own ap

[Dogtanian]

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.

The "GPL Community?"

[Ayanami Rei]

You mean... slashdot?
Sourceforge?

I was just wondering what you meant by that.

It's the Anonymous Astroturfer!

[argent]

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.

Here's a weird example I stumbled across...

[Ayanami Rei]

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...

Speak for yourself, dick smoker.

[Ayanami Rei]

Re:Linux users are just as guilty of WHAT

[belmolis]

When I purchase something (Windows XP, XBox, PS2, lumber, or a drill), I am now the owner of that piece of property.

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.

Speak. For. Yourself.

[Ayanami Rei]

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!

Re:Speak. For. Yourself.

[ChaoticCoyote]

Okay, okay! SO I'm in a bad mood today, and I shouldn't generalize, and... mea culpa.

I just find it so frustrating that so many people don't seem to respect the right of creators to profit from their their work. (Note that profit need not be money -- it can be in making society better, or in scratching an itch, or in just having fun, too.)

For every person who supports local artists, there are thousands who download illegally. GPL violations are simply a symptom of a broader problem in our selfish society.

Re:Speak. For. Yourself.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you get your statistics from where?

Err... drunkenbatman credits eventhorizon.

[Ayanami Rei]

You just happened to stumble on ryan's finding independantly.
The "drunkenblog guy" and eventhorizon (ryan) are collaborators.

Re:Linux users are just as guilty of WHAT

[t35t0r]

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.

Re:If deliberate... did they just GPL their own ap

[IthnkImParanoid]

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 the code that's free

[phliar]

Freedom tests? "More" free? If your grandma gave the violin to the school under condition that it be used in instruction, but the school realised it was $25K so they sold it, of course your grandma has the right to be pissed off.

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.

How is that less freedom? Thats more freedom for people who use the project.

Freedom is not absolute: your freedom to act stops at my nose. With the GPL it's the code that's free, not other programmers. If I release code under the GPL, the code will always be free -- it cannot be incorporated into a non-free project.

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.

Arben's Spin

[Raybies]

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.

Re:If deliberate... did they just GPL their own ap

[Dogtanian]

Okay; I see what you're getting at now.

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 /. trick of hypothetical arguments about the "law", but when it comes down to it, the "law" is what courts rule, not what *we* say...

Giclee

[n6mod]

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.

Re:Giclee

[djdanlib]

Nobody is going to take it seriously because there are companies like Lexmark and Brother out there, making sub-$100 inkjet printers that streak and sputter no matter what you do, and break if you look at them crosseyed... and the $100-250 price range of the venerable Epson, Canon, and HP isn't much better. Not to mention those all-in-one machines that sacrifice better printing technology to have a scanner in the same price bracket.

I need to vent on that one. I hate the $50 Lexmark 615. My more "Frugal" (ahem) customers go OOH! CHEAP PRINTER! and buy it, then complain for a year until it finally breaks... then they buy another one.

By the way, I use an Epson 2200 with Epsob Premium Luster paper, and I agree totally on the evolution of inkjet printing to a serious medium. People just don't know what they're missing when they get a $100 printer.

Maybe not actually

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Maybe not actually

[kv9]

FTFA

he already seems to have legal support:

We'll get to the whole slanderer and customers part in a moment, but basically they're going to do what they're going to do and I'll have to deal with it. However, I'll have help. I'll be represented in these matters by: Yano Rubinstein, of: Rubinstein Law Group 100 Pine Street 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 tel: 415.277.1900 fax: 415.651.9853

with a big heart, which might help:

It's a big deal that he's doing this, and let's just say if I was forced to pay the full cost of his services we'd be talking indentured servitude. If there is a guy to send your love to for helping out, it's him. MXS is going to do what they feel they have to do, but one way or another -- with some help from some friends -- it'll work out as it should.

Origin of java-based decode client.

[Ayanami Rei]

I'll bet anyone a few lattes that it is none other than MediaFrame.

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 ... they are the kings of viral marketing ... MXS probably promised them the encoder/distribution side.

Just a WILD THEORY...

Re:Join in the supposed slander and libel

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Linux users are just as guilty of WHAT

[Travelsonic]

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.

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.

making money off software

[Ensign Nemo]

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

Re:making money off software

[Quill_28]

Nope, I got this from reading about interviews with him.

Some of the quotes I found quite surprising.

Our Poor Maligned Elephant

[codermotor]

Odd, at first I read the second sentence as referring to "my client's sad pink elephant".

Problem is

[Sycraft-fu]

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."

To honor drunkenbatman...

[EccentricAnomaly]

I propose that we coin a new term for obsessive investigative reporting that heavily uses the internet: "to go DrunkenBatman on someone" :)

Re:To honor drunkenbatman...

[Anonymous Coward]

also synonymous with "doing your job"

Re:To honor drunkenbatman...

[Anonymous Coward]

also synonymous with "doing your job"

but doing it drunkenbatman style

Sounds like Canopy

[mlynx]

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).

Copying is Copying (sometimes wrong, but never the

[Travelsonic]

Copying is copying, certain types like plagiarism and copyright infringement are wrong, but it is NOT theft legally or philosophically.

Stealing is stealing, rationalize it all you want.

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.

If you sneak into a concert is it stealing? If you sneak into a theater is it stealing?

No, it's tresspassing.

If you download pirated code and use it, but not very often is it stealing? If you download pirated music and listen to it is it stealing?

No, it's still the crime (I stated it's a crime, happy?) of copyright infringement/piracy.

--Grow up.

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.

Re:Linux users are just as guilty of WHAT

[eeyore-on-thorazine]

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.

No SHIT, Sherlock!

[vivin]

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.