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"
Maybe this should be an ask slashdot or something, but I have a question.
How does one go about making sure that your source code hasn't been "misappropriated" (read stolen) and placed into a closed source app?
Are there services out there for this sort of thing or do you just have to be forever diligent?
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
I really wish free software projects wouldn't give in so easily all the time. By not doing anything anymore once the license terms have been satisfied again, they're just teaching companies that it's economically sound to rip them off - after all, you don't lose anything if you get caught, and you gain something if you don't.
This isn't good, though, as it will only encourage the less-than-scrupulous companies to commit further license violations, many of which *will* go undetected. It's one thing to essentially take a product, slap a new name on it, and then try to sell it (like was the case in the CherryOS case) or at least claim it as your own; that's easily detectable. Taking code from a GPL'ed library, though, for example, and integrating that into your $10K+ enterprise application, will most likely not be noticed, even though it is just as illegal.
As such, I'd really like to see an actual lawsuit some time where the developers of the project that was ripped off seek (punitive) damages, and maybe, if the case allows for it, press criminal charges against the company executives, too. Violating a free software license is *no* small matter - it's just as illegal and immoral as it is to press and sell illegally-produced copies of Windows, for example, and companies need to realize that.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
I don't think that (b) should ever be an acceptable option.
It's too easy for a company to violate the GPL and calculate the risk of getting caught and the cost of implementing a solution to replace the GPL component.
These rip-offs are a bit of proof that Miranada is the best open source multiprotocol IM client around.
Give it a try if you haven't already!
If someone ripped off your code, sue 'em, screw 'em and boo 'em.
Actually, this is not what needs to be done. Lawsuits, yes, w/ plenty of media attention, but the point should not be to attack businesses. Instead it should be to legally strengthen the GPL and show that open source code is of such high quality that businesses use it in their own commerical products. Suing business for astronomical payouts would result in short term gains for open source, but would scare many businesses away from trying open source legitamatemly for fear that they expose themselves to legal risk.
As we good slashdot users know, it's not theft when IP is appropriate from big evil faceless corporate monoliths that make money. But it's totally evil stealing when it's the GPL!
They would have to remove the whole thing
The point is, IMBlaze *IS* gaim, but with a nominal amount of crappy spamvertising code chucked in.
The Gaim developers are probably owed the entire revenue stream the product made, because IMBlaze are wrongfully claiming someone elses product as there own and charging people money for it.... and possibly triple damage style too because IMBLaze *HAS* been informed.
If the Gaim people want to, they are going to get a bunch of dollars compensation and IMBlaze are history.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
*BULLSHIT*
They claimed it would be there own code indeed about 10 months ago
SINCE THEN
they have revamped the website, changed the system, and its *STILL* fucking gaim.
They are *LYING THRU THERE TEETH*
Seriously, the developer *NEEDS* to post the GPL code *NOW*.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
It's not a contract, but nevertheless, whether you license a program you developed or not or under which terms is your choice. You don't get a license to use the program because you downloaded it; in fact, you don't get a license in that sense at all. Rather, you *have* a license, because the developer decided, at some point, to license his program to everyone on the planet.
And that's just the point: it's not about downloading, it's about whether you (the person) are allowed to use the program under certain license terms or not.
So, all in all... you agreed to the license, and the license stated that the developer can take away your rights (and in fact does so automatically) under certain circumstances. You can't reacquire the license by redownloading the program; your rights to use the program under that license are gone, and it's up to the rights holder to decide whether you'll get them back or not. Of course, the GPL *is* no contract, so you're not bound by it and can instead opt to refuse to accept it at all. However, in *that* case, the only rights you still have are those that you are guaranteed by copyright law, anyway, and those do not include use, distribution, modification etc. of the program.
In other words: you don't have to play by the rules. But you have to accept the rules to enter the playing field (which is private property), and if you, at some point, decide that you don't want to do so after all, you'll have to leave the playing field again.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
So, all they have to do is put back the copyright notices, and the .dsp files, and then they can continue to offer spyware to the unwitting public? :(
The GPL doesn't seem to give us much protection against chancers like these