Slashdot Mirror
GPL Violations of Miranda IM
Eesh writes "The Miranda project developers have recently posted to their development blog about two GPL violations of companies using their code - vBuzzer and StarMessenger. Today, they also posted that vBuzzer are taking steps to correct that violation. Hopefully this will work out fine. Miranda 0.401 stable was released recently"
You're right.
What I don't get is the repeated offenders. If one project "makes good" they are still required to stop development/distribution of offensive software. If I take your source code and put it in my 1.0 series application and then finally release the code with my 2.0 series... I have no right to go onto develop the 3.0 series of the software.
Once you violate the GPL, you've lost all rights under the license. Maybe the FSF should spend a few of those donations they collect and sue a few of these scoundrels.
The precedent needs to be set.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Are you prepared and willing to finance this legal battle you propose? Remember, lawyers are not cheap. And many open source developers are students who can barely afford to eat Kraft Dinner, let alone afford a lawyer to defend the copyright on a piece of software they're not making any direct financial gains from. If you want this courtroom battle, then you'll have to finance it yourself.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
the fear is that some judge will invalidate the GPL
>Miranada is the best open source multiprotocol IM client around
How about multi-platform? Sure well-coded OSS ported to Windows is cool (eg The GIMP), but Windows-only OSS?
It's verging on hypocritical idealogically (if it could be ported, it should) and very few Windows end-users are ever going to compile it from source (certainly more than 3 commands on Windows (exception perl modules))
I think you are one of about maybe 250 people who think there is a double standard when it comes to copyright issues.
Let me try to clarify a few points... maybe then there will be 249 people left without a clue:
1. If the situation were reversed (closed/proprietary source included within an OSS project) there would be a huge stink about it. So make no mistake. It would be immensely easy to show and the perps would be shamed out of the community. I think that's the reason it probably doesn't happen...(that often? I've never heard of it before.)
2. What makes "us" angry about big companies doing bad things is attempting to and often succeeding in taking away our rights and freedoms in order to secure their business model. I don't think there has been a single instance of people getting pissed off over a company embracing and following the GPL rules. In fact, when it happens, we generally flock to these companies in droves. Linksys is a perfect example of this effect. They use Linux in their WRT54G and it's incredibly popular as a result. Speaking only for myself, I look for the Linksys label now when getting small network equipment.
This stuff has nothing to do with music and movies, so don't even go there. It's not the same thing in my mind nor in the minds of others I reckon. It would only become similar if we attempted to make money from copying CDs and DVDs and claimed that we created those works ourselves.
I only wish physical goods could be shared in the way software, music and video can be shared... hunger would be a forgotten problem. (Sure, you can take my sandwich to make a copy for yourself...) If everyone had everything they ever wanted, what would the world come to though? Maybe I'll write a book and give it out to the world for free.
This would make more sense if you weren't comparing making an unauthorized copy of something for personal use,
to taking someone else's product, repackaging it, and reselling it as a commercial venture.
But even then trying to reduce the views of the millions of people who read slashdot down to a single viewpoint is asinine.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Everybody go to their contact page, fill it out with dummy information, and submit it.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
(b) is a perfectly legally acceptable option, although the copyright holders would be within their rights to demand damages for the past infringement.
Additionally, there is always option (c), which is negotiate with the copyright holders for different licensing terms. I'm not aware of cases where this has been done.
If (a) were the only option, then the GPL would truly be viral and dangerous, like it has been misrepresented by various corporations. Seriously, if the mere possibility that a single employee might include a small amount of GPLd code in a proprietary product and thus force the product to be published as open source, software companies would start demanding entirely unreasonable policies toward open source (e.g. including clauses in employment contracts forbidding their employees from even thinking about open source in their spare time).
Lazy and Stupid, sounds just like someone that would reuse GPL and not give a damn, no ?
support@imblaze.com
"Obscenity is the crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker." - cloak42
This is precisely where the American legal system fails. In order to bring a suit against someone who has committed a civil wrongdoing (ie. not a crime against the state) the full burden of expense falls on the victim.
Like all those trolls who love to ride people who remark about the inequities of corporate America,"If you don't like it then start your own company."
And just where does the magic startup capital come from?
The solution is not increased government assistance. That would only lead to abuse and frivolous lawsuits. The solution is a streamlined system of justice which isn't endlessly bottlenecked by paperwork, frivolous forms, and lawyers. If a GAIM developer should walk into an attorney's office with proof that IMblaze is a ripoff of their code, there should be a compensation check and a court injunction against IMblaze within 24 hours.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Straw man arguments are never okay.
Observing people on a message board who feel some way about A,
then observing people on same message board who feel some way about B,
then going "AHA! This message board has hypocritical views on A!",
is never anything but stupid. You want to complain about some hypothetical opinion? Fine. Find someone expressing it first, then explain why it's hypocritical. Don't just set up a big box labeled "HYPOCRITE" in a public space, then try to back random people into it.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Actually, according to the GPL, if the infringer took that code, made some improvements to it that were actually worthwhile, and then released it as closed source, then you have been hurt -- and your source code is worse off for it, because if they had complied with the GPL, then you'd have those improvements and your source code would be all the better for it.
In the real world, if an trespasser pees in my swimming pool, I suffer damage because my pool has been polluted. If the trespasser takes walnuts from my trees, I sufer damage because I have fewer walnuts.
But with GPL software, how am I harmed if someone improves my code but doesn't grant me access to it? I want a serious answer to this question, and not ideological spewage. How has it damaged the software residing on my ftp server? I may not have access to those improvement, but those improvements are not mine. I am in EXACTLY the same situation wether those improvements were made or not made.
RMS takes great pains in explaining that copyright infringement is not theft or piracy. Because of its special nature, information cannot be stolen. Yet doesn't this exact same nature mean that we are not harmed if improvements are kept private? Or as ESR recently said, why is GPL software so fragile that we have to protect it with the full power of the court system, and the armed police force that back it?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Some difference... Someone downloads an MP3 that they'd never have bought legally if given the opportunity, then they haven't stolen anything. Nobody lost anything. Some kid downloads a warez copy of Photoshop knowing there's no way in hell he'd have been able to afford it in the first place, then nothing's stolen. Nobody lost anything. In fact, if a few thousand kids do that and get some skills with the software, then it actually helps later on when they go to work and get asked to spend the company's money on a graphics app. (Although that's beside the point) Someone downloads warez for eval, then nobody's lost anything unless the person doesn't buy it instead of just wishing he hadn't bought it. (Would you buy a car without a test drive? Did you steal that time behind the wheel when you decided to get something else?) If someone dowloads a movie that they wouldn't have ever paid to see, no one's lost anything.
On the flip side though, when someone diverts profit...
Someone downloads a movie, makes a few dozen DVDs with inkjet-printed labels and sells them out of the trunk of a Caprice across the street from Blockbuster or the movie theater for five bucks? That's stealing. A person or entity who can plainly afford and otherwise would buy that copy of Photoshop if it weren't so easy to get warez? That's stealing. Get a bunch of albums off Kazaa or Gnutella and sell 'em to people who'd otherwise have bought them legitimately? Stealing. Grab a GPL'ed app, hide what it is, snatch out all the copyrights, credits and license, bundle some spyware/adware with it and seek revenue from advertisers? Oh you better believe that's stealing.
See the difference?