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.'"
The GNU GPL (General Public License) states that you have to distribute the source code with any binaries you distribute. If no one outside your client's company will receive binaries of your program, then no one but your client is required to have the source code made available to them.
Thank you for your inaccurate trolling.
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.
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.
Here's not advice:
Exchange your lawer for one that actually knows his trade.
IANAL: but the GPL FAQ clearly states that output generated by a GPL program isn't covered by the GPL, so it's 100% safe to use programs like GCC for compiling your program.
And another thing, pretty much all Open Source licenses only "restrict" you in one way when you distribute your creation. If it's kept in private you are not "restricted".
We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution. Releasing Code is NOT giving away your work. Applying the same logic, one could say that those people who made the kernel GAVE AWAY their work to you. You could 'touch' kernel and give back to the community that gave you the kernel in the first place.
www.lemonodor.com A mostly Lisp weblog
Thanks to the DMCA, how will we (those of us in the US, or countries willing to extradite) even know if GPL code is in closed source software? We can't reverse engineer to find out!
That question is pretty easy to answer. It is ok to use GPLed code in a beta of your closed source software to 'test stuff' so long as you don't distribute it.
So by the first _public_ beta, that code had better be gone, before that it's all fair play.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
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
I was going by the GPL FAQ, which I've found to be very helpful but I could be misinterpreting something... Under "If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
"No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public."
The GPL FAQ, under "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??" says:
""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."
It would appear someone would have to receive that 'offer' in some way (I.E., the company distributed it to them) in order to be entitled to ask for the source, with the 'third party' bit coming in once a fellow user distributes it to you. Basically, if the company or someone else hasn't given you the software, the company doesn't have to give you anything.
Like I said, I could well be misinterpreting.
So what is stopping them from removing the copyright notices? Its not the GPL is it?
FFS yes! Did you ever consider reading the license?
You are clearly confused and are reading the situation backwards. A normal software license gives you no rights to use the code at all.
Not true at all. The software we release uses source code under about a dozen different licences. None of them make any requirements on derived works. Al of them are compatible with each other. Many of them are negotiable.
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. As such there's no way we could possibly use GPL code in our applications. As such, it removes the right to use GPL code with non-GPL code
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.
...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 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.
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.
If, and only if, you distribute the code.
Which is kinda what we do.
Also, the license is negotiable, if you can get all authors to the table.
There's the problem. If we want to use any other code, we talk to a single person. It's a lot easier.
There is nothing to the GPL that is more problematic than a proprietary license. If you think there is, name it and we'll be sure to prove you wrong.
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.
This is nothing more than a copy and paste troll.
Please come up with something original.
Thanks.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Here's a list of their products.
Disclaimer: I'm not in the US so I don't really keep track of that that law says
...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.
So you want to distribute other people's work without following their rules?
No. We want the rules to allow us to agree to other people's rules for their code as well. The GPL does not allow this, hence we don't use GPL code.
If you're going to harvest the power of Open Source, you'll have to accept that it comes with responsibilities.
We do, and we do. We just don't use GPL code, because it is incompatible with other licences.
It's no different than with any other license.
Yes it is. Other licences are compatible with each other.
If you prefer to pay someone money for code, that's your problem.
We prefer not to. At times we have to. You'd be surprised how much code does not have a GPL licenced equivalent. Since we don't want to rewrite this from scratch, we tendto buy a licence. This precludes us from using any GPL code in the entire application.
If you think that other licenses are more negotiable, why don't you negotiate with these authors to make their license compatible with the GPL?
So, you can be absolutely sure that all potential software companies whose software we might want to use could be persuaded to allow us unlimited licence to sell copies of their software at a lower cost than them? Given that these companies make 100% of their revenue from selling copies of their software, I consider this unlikely. If you think they will dop this then you are rather naive about the realities of the software industry.
Name one other licence that makes demands on how software it is linked with may and may not be distributed. All of our software could be distributed with or without source, for free or for a fee. The only exception is the specific code that we have licenced from another company.
Of course, then there's the other problem. If we violate the licence of a commercial company, we have a legal problem. If we violate the GPL, not only do we have a legal problem. We have a PR problem.
I am a programmer although actually I have stoped programming for quite some time (because I am making my PhD now) but, I think there is a really easy way of using GPL'd code in a closed source project, how?
APIs.
Ok, imagine I want to use some GPL'd source code program with some other propietary code I have written, well, what I will do is create a "distribution" CD with my program, in which I will put the GPL'd code, and I will add some API's which will be de MODIFICATION to the GPL'd program, of course those APIs would be open, and I will also add my Closed Source (i.e. commercial) software, which, uses the API I created to call the other program.
If the FSF, GPL's guys get really pissing then instead of an API I would use a TCP socket communication protocol, or whatever is needed, of course I WILL have to donate/open the code for the communication mechanism, but, I will be able to have my closed source program intact because they are 2 different programs.
I do not know why any company has thought about it...
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
>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
some vendors bar you from releasing *their* code, can you please explain what does "None of them make any requirements on derived works." mean?
We can still release our own code if we use their code.
FYI: Parent is a standard cut & paste troll that gets posted in pretty much any Linux/GPL related story.
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
I suggest you take a look at the 2 clause BSD license, you may find that:
1. It is compatible with the GPL
2. The GPL is compatible with it
3. There is quite a bit of software around that uses it and you might find the things you need among thoat.
Not to mention the fact that while you have to distribute source code for your modifications on a GPLed program, there is nothing whatsoever preventing you from building an application on top of Linux for example and distribute only the binaries for that application.
You seem to be lacking a bit of information here.
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.
The other question is when are you actually using GPL code?
If you look at a piece of FOSS and then write a program that is similar is that a violation of the GPL?
If you do not cut and paste the code is it okay? How much code can you cut and paste before you are under the GPL. If I look at DBM an decide I want to use the hash function as a small part of closed source or even a BSD program will I be in Violation if I.
a. Cut and paste the one function into my code.
b. Type in the function by hand.
c. Re write the function using different identifiers.
e. convert it to a different language like Pascal, ADA, perl, python, or java?
Be careful how strict you want it to be. Remember the laws that effect the GPL also effect closed source as well. Too strict and you could effectively make every programmer a slave to what ever project they have worked on in the past. You could make it totally illegal for someone that worked on a GPL program from working on a BSD project. Or anyone that ever worked on a closed source project from ever working on an OSS project.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
>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
It's certainly not the only license that grants rights - when stated like this, people are normally comparing the GPL to an EULA from a users perspective, rather than to a commercial library license from a developers perspective. However, it does *not* take away rights. Ever. If you're creating a derived work, you *never* had the right to distribute that work. This, of course, is true of any license for a software library - it'd be pretty useless otherwise. From a developers perspective, the GPL restricts the developer in order to presever the freedom of the user. This is something that a great many people do not understand, and many people who do understand it don't like it because they want to sell closed source applications. Which is fine with me, as far as it goes, because I'm not as extreme as RMS is. But understanding why the GPL does what it does is important to using it properly.
Maybe you're joking, but there's a simple explaination for some of the companies that "shamelessly violate it." 1) Lets say you're a college student and you and your friends make, lets say, a simple blog engine in C++. Company XYZ comes along, steals it, changes some text and sells it. Do you have the funds to sue? Do you have the time? What if only one of you wrote it? 2) The "companies" that steal code are often small, one or two man jobs. Not real companies by any stretch, just a single somewhat talented coder who decided to be unethical.
$150. You could get the source from someone else who had it, or if you had internet access you could ftp it. Stallman freely admits he was trying to find a way to make money from free software cuz he was broke.
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:
... 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
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.
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.
The GPL itself prohibits selling the source to people who you gave binaries to for anything except a nominal cost, and Stallman of all people knows that.
It doesn't, however, prohibit selling the binaries for any amount you want, or selling the source and binaries on the same medium for any amount you want, or selling the source for any amount to people you haven't given binaries to.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?