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.'"
Consulting 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.
FP!
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.
...out of the normally unsourcable. Bravo!
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
I'm all for violating the spirit of the GPL at every turn, but the extent of actual violations of the license by Maui-X is incomprehensible to me. It's one thing to restrict source code to licensees who ask for it (who would obviously have the extended but rarely-used right of redistributing it to 3rd parties), it's a completely different thing to simply claim that the GPL code is all fresh, non-GPL work and that anyone claiming otherwise can go screw themselves.
There are a handful of ways around GPL licensing and Maui-X simply doesn't take any of those tacks.
This is a community problem, but it's really more of a problem of a company willing to break the law to accomplish their ends.
(tangent) Say what you will about Microsoft and their heavy-handed tactics, but for every action they take they usually have at least a smidgen of legal reasoning to back them up.
Darl must be beaming and handing out cigars by now...
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Maui does seem to have a new mode of operation here. Whenever somone proves that they stole some source code, they say 'Oh, that... Yeah that was just a bit of test code we borrowed. The new release is clean.' Then they release a new version which is identical to the old version, except maybe they altered some text strings to make the release appear to be different.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Just because someone is selling something with GPL code, it doesn't mean they also have to offer the source files for everyone to download, but they do have to make it available for no more than a nominal fee to those they distribute it to.
YES THEY DO HAVE TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. The only way to avoid that is to ship the source with the binaries. Otherwise you have to give the source to anyone who asks ("any third party") for no more than a nominal fee.
This just goes to show that people are willing to pay extra for software that they believe isn't encumbered by the GPL.
OK, so they denied taking something and it was proven (at least to my satisfaction) that they did. Now Maui is "coming clean" that they "borrowed" GPL code and want to play nice. I guess they figure it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. It makes me wonder if their other products have similar issues.
A slippery slope.
for investigative and prosecutorial branches in the OSS legal community. It might well be self supported from awards and even generate some $ to put in developers pockets.
Read paragraph 3 of the GPL - there are 3 ways to Free The Source(tm 2005 FSF), and your way, offering source to all third parties, is only one of them. If you give away the source with the program, you have fulfilled your main obligation.
It sounds all too much like an elaborate marketing scheme on their part. The formula is pretty simple. Build a junk product, use gpl'ed code, make sure someone in the oss community noticed you're not handing out the modified source, let them howl for a few months, brand recognition goes through the roof!
There's no such thing as bad press right ? Slashdot & everybody else shouldn't feed them what they want.. keep quiet and have the EFF sue their asses.
Like I said, this is gotta be a junk product they're building. I don't know what the hell it is and have not read the article(s) here on slashdot.
I think you forgot to click the Post Anonymously thing.
Kids today are tyrants. They contradict their parent, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers. - Socrates 400 BC
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.
and it gets worse every day (witness corporate USA executives conduct, mega rich and they still want more)
the supposed "civilized world" people want that [$CONSUMER_ITEM] and will do anything to get it, ethics be dammned.
Here's a list of their products.
...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.
They are distributing the program themselves without offering source code. They are claiming that the GPL gives them this right, but they aren't offering source as required by the GPL. Yes, this is a technicality, but it seems like a violation.
Lasers Controlled Games!
We should start lawsuiting them. If companies think the Open Source Comunity (WE) don't care about OUR (everybody) rights they will break the GPL everyday.
I know I'm just a noob, but could someone please explain to me who enforces the GPL, and why so many companies shamelessly violate it?
There is certainly some confusion (myself included) about just who is entitled to ask for the source code of a GPL'ed program that is sold in binary form.
In actual practice, however, I think the question is moot. My reasoning is this:
Once *anyone* has received a copy of the source from the company that sold the binaries, they can (and, given the folks who bother to do the requesting, at least one person likely will) distribute the source to EVERYONE else without restriction.
This means that once ONE copy of the source is distributed, it makes no difference whether the distributor of the binaries limits its offer of source code to those who bought the binaries, or just posts the source for all to download. The source is out there, and the seller cannot make any claim that anyone "improperly" received it, since its redistribution is unrestricted per the GPL.
It is certainly possible that litigious scoundrels might try to sue under this circumstance, but such a suit would certainly be doomed. Damages for "improperly" receiving something you could easily have received for free by an essentially-equivalent "proper" process that has the identical result? The judge would fall off the bench laughing.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Those are easy to answer, and the answer is not specific to the GPL. This is a matter of copyright law, and everyone in the US is subject to those rules. All of the above would constitute copyright infringment. If you "rewrite" a function through a clean room implementation (never seen the original code, it just happens to look the same due to the fact it does the same thing), then you're OK, unless you've infringed on a patent in the process.
(especially useful for reformed IP litigation companies who've gotten a conscience)
1. Identify companies who are violating the GPL by secretly incorporating it into their proprietary products.
2. Make licensing arrangements with the Open Source authors involved, so as to be able to sue on their behalf. Register the copyrights involved on behalf of the authors (this allows increased damage awards for willful copyright violation, IIRC)
3. Contact the GPL violators and get them to comply and pay a please-go-away fee; sue those who won't comply, and win by judgement or settlement (including GPL compliance either way).
4. Profit! (in an ethically responsible way, even!)
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
The name of EVERY FUNCTION is completely different. All the ones in Maui software start with ADSTATS and in the so-called original, all the function names begin with PHPSTAT.
How could this be copying code?
And as for all the function bodies being exactly the same code, well, it's a miracle. I guess good programmers all format their code exactly the same, use the same comments, and even misspell the same comments. Uhm, I gotta go.
Sincerely,
Maui X^H^H^H^H^H^H Someone with no financial interest in the outcome of this situation
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:
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.
TFA is great work and right on target, but too bad the blog also stoops to doing some personal snooping and posting links to some personal info stuff about a couple of people involved. That brings it almost to the level of the O'gara stuff about PJ. It even points out one person's religion (ala OGara), as if that matters. You could argue that its part of the investigation of who is who in this affair. Thats a judgement call, I suppose. To me it was gratuitous.
Hmm. I see that companies don't think they can adhere to the GPL, if they're going to incorporate GPL code into their products. On the other hand, I see the GPL as still a paper shark, where violating it gets you nothing but a bunch of nasty emails from geeks.
These are two separate problems with the GPL: Companies can't live with it, and they can't be made to do so. Maybe it's time to accept that the GPL needs some serious reworking if OSS is to be used commercially.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
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 :-)
I posted the above in response to the previous story. I'm absolutely serious - they should sue the MPAA for copyright infringement; they made illegal copies of the software when they installed it onto their hard drives, and ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.
You slashdotters are no better than MXS. You guys all want "open source", which means you don't want to pay a single red cent for any software you steal. Same goes for music, movies, whatever. Bittorrent, Morpheus, all of it, just proves you guys are just a bunch of whining thieves that want everything for free.
The GPL has been tested in a court of law-- several, even (Germany and the US being two big countries to test it). Google is your friend.
The GPL is not a contract. It is a grant of copyright under specific terms. One of the fundamental ideas of copyright is this: you cannot publish a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright owner. That's what the GPL is, permission from the copyright owner. The GPL outlines the conditions under which you may use the copyrighted work.
One of the reasons the GPL hasn't been in too many high-profile court cases is simple: the defending lawyers read the license of copyright, tell their clients they are screwed, and advise them to rectify their copyright breach.
It is up to the individual owners of the copyright to defend their copyright. That is the primary reason the FSF likes you to assign a copyright to them for your GPL works, so they can legally defend the copyright. Otherwise, it's up to each programmer to pursue violations themselves.
Hope that helps clear things up.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
however, we can't. The reason is that the GPL insists on inflicting its terms on everyone else's code
No, it does not. If you use some GPL stuff inside your product then just release the source code with all of the modifications you made and be done with it. That's it. Any other programs you can release as you please, just including the GPL software doesn't make the others GPL.
How is that a problem for you?
Perhaps what you would want to do is to take the GPL code and modify some bits and call it your own without releasing the source? That's bad.
I know of another example: http://www.ed.csm.com.au/edmail.html This is a commercial product used by the South Australian Education System, the company who `created` the product is actually using a reskinned SquirrelMail, talk about being unethical and untruthful to your customers (especially >$2mAU contracts.....), may the slashdot effect can rustle some feathers........
Due to funds shortage, no sigs will be issued today. Thankyou.