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".
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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: