Slashdot Mirror
VX30 Ad-Stats Code Online
tmk writes "Drunkenblog has done it again. After deconstructing Maui X-Stream has GPL Violations with reproducable proof, he put a copy of the VX30 Ad-Stats source online. There is also a copy of the phpAdsNew source to compare. Drunkenbatman
says 'This is a community problem, and it's pretty much up to you.'"
So when is it okay to use GPL code? I mean it seems alot of companies use it n beta "to test stuff" or "to use untill we code our own for the full version". When does this start becoming "well, it's easier"?
I mean unless you read every single bit of OSS code and every single bit of closed source code you'd never going to catch all these things.
How long is it untill people start to use GPL code in closed source software and sue anyone who reversse engineers it?
I like muppets.
You are misinformed on many points. Get a better laywer I think.
The GPL is not holding the GNU/Linux OS itself back, only people who want to hoard the code. If you use the software only in-house then there are some limited exceptions within the GPL, so you again should get a better lawyer.
"no business will ever be able to use it. "
Well IBM and many other companies have been able to get on with it. The GPL divides smart and innovative people from the cut and paste brigade. If you can't make a profit then it is your own stupid fault.
"Its draconian requirements"
You are clearly confused and are reading the situation backwards. A normal software license gives you no rights to use the code at all.
The GPL however gives you all the rights but one: you do not have the right to remove the rights of others. You can use the code that has been created at much expense only if you do not attempt to make free software unfree.
No one is forcing you to use GPL'd code. If you want to buy in code to save time then you have to pay for it. The cost for GPL'd software is that you have to share improvements.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, stop crying about it and get on with your life.
My little Linux and tech blog
...and so one day me and my buddies stumble upon this remarkable tower which soared into the clouds. We talked to the natives who explained that local peasants had built the tower over a thousand years and that everyone was welcome inside. We were told we could even live in the tower, modify it or add to it if we wanted. Anywho, my buddies and I spent about three months adding a room to the top of the tower. That place was decked out too -- shag carpet, wall-to-wall speakers with a phat 8-track STEREO sound system, posters, a big fountain. I'm tell you, that place was the... well, it was quite nice. So one day we get a knock on the door. The local peasants want to come in and have a look at our addition. They said, "we often are inspired by the ideas of others and would like to see what you have done." Can you believe that?! Fucking pricks. Coming in to STEAL our ideas?! After all the work we had done even! Man, I just don't know about peasants sometime. I don't think they understand anything.
It's not a community problem... it's a business ethics problem. As long as companies can get away with using open source software in closed source products, they will continue to do so.
Only when the first cases are brought before court, we might see an improvement. Until that moment, this will continue.
...I wouldn't see lack of Token Ring support as a negative. More like leading the way.
But seriously...I have seen this exact text before. The author seems to have an agenda.
If you don't want to release the source code to your customer (who, by the way, paid you for "your hard work"), don't use GPL'd code as a basis for your work. Write it all yourself from scratch. Then, you own it all!
And, by the way, using GCC does not in any way, subject the code you compile with it, to the GPL.
I'd suggest you get a second opinion from another law firm.
it is about abusing the license
TODO: 753) write sig.
>The GPL is inconvenient in that it appears to be
>deliberately designed to be incompatible with other
>licences. Many other vendors bar us from releasing
>their code
See, it's not the GPL, it's the programmers that chose to license their work under the GPL.
You whould think of it as "The programmers bar us from *not* releasing their code."
BTW, if you some vendors bar you from releasing *their* code, can you please explain what does "None of them make any requirements on derived works." mean?
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
This would work, but the reason that companies that don't comply with the GPL don't do this is that it takes much more work than just "s/phpAdsNew/AdStats/g" and whatnot.
They'd have to WORK for it. And even that patch to allow all the functions of the program to be accessible by API would be a huge plus.
>I can not use GPL code with other code that is not
>licensed under the GPL. The GPL is incompatible
>with every other licence I've seen. Every other
>licence I've seen is incompatible with precisely
>one licence - The GPL.
Ok, i'll bite..
1) If another license is less restrictive than GPL that means that you are allowed to change the license for that code (considering that this is basically the restriction GPL enforces). So you can GPL the code, and the license is compatible with GPL.
2) If the license is more restrictive than GPL, and you cannot change it, I agree that you have a problem. But it's a problem with the other license, (at least) as much as it's a problem with GPL, no?
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
I don't understand what the gripe with making new verbs is. I consider it one of English's great strengths, that one can make new verbs at will. English is very flexible due to this.
If nominalization in English is acceptable, I would hope the opposite (verbification) is OK. Among other languages, Japanese and Latin both have it.
Please, just give me one reason why what the gp said was poor communication (and that is, after all, the whole point of language -- to communicate).
I looked into the Maui X stuff and checked, and yes, they are very cleraly violating the GPL. It strikes me, however, that by making it impossible to obtain the source code, they are circumventing the technological measure of access control (namely, the source code in ASCII form).
The DMCA doesn't necessarily require an access control measure to lock someone out of access to a work (how it is typically employed). Specifically, a technical measure is:
I'd argue that distributing source code so as to grant access to the work is an effective measure to do so, and that in the normal course of it's operation (communicating the structure of an application) that it requires the application of information (headers, expert knowledge, software analysis tools), a process or treatment (at the very least, a system tath can decode ASCII and render it as glyphs on a display or printed page), and the authority of the copyright owner (a license; namely the GPL).
It seems to mee that if you contact their ISP you can have their site shut down. Further, you can complain to the FBI since it's now a federal criminal complaint:
... lack of Token Ring support ... unable to defrag its ext2 file system ... copyrighted under something called the GPL
You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about, neither technically nor legally.
Also, you were surprised that your access to the source code came with some conditions? Please remind me to never hire you as a consultant. Checking facts like that first before you invest considerable time and money is one of the most basic skills you should have.
btw.: It's not copyrighted under the GPL, it's copyrighted under the Berne Convention. It is licensed under the GPL. Big difference.
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.
Fire your lawyer and hire someone who can read.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
- Software development takes time
- time = money
- Donating code = Donating time = Donating money (ie., donating code is just as good as paying cash money)
By taking the software (phpAdsNew), and disregarding the license, MXS committed a copyright violation, and the copyright holder has a right now to sue MXS to force them to: (a) stop infringing by removing all of phpAdsNew from AdStats; (b) pay damages; (c) comply with the license and pay for phpAdsNew by way of contributing their modifications (if any) back to the project; or (d) some combination of the above.This is Copyright/Econ 101 stuff here.
Hehe. Very funny. Were's all the "It's inevitable now. You can't stop it, so you might as well give in to it" talk? Or everyone's favourite "Free advertising!". It sounds great when you're talking about someone elses work. It's a different thing when it's YOUR work being exploited.
If you could compile a version of your application which contained no GPL code, then you could distribute that all you want - thats yours, and you have the rights to it. You're claiming that somehow you lose rights because you can't distribute GPL code alongside yours, which is false. Do you feel that you lose rights because you can't distribute your application without having paid money to commercial library vendors? It's the same thing. You aren't losing a right because you never had one in the first place.