Slashdot Mirror
GPL Violations of Miranda IM
Eesh writes "The Miranda project developers have recently posted to their development blog about two GPL violations of companies using their code - vBuzzer and StarMessenger. Today, they also posted that vBuzzer are taking steps to correct that violation. Hopefully this will work out fine. Miranda 0.401 stable was released recently"
Oh Miranda - you came and you gave without taking!
Maybe this should be an ask slashdot or something, but I have a question.
How does one go about making sure that your source code hasn't been "misappropriated" (read stolen) and placed into a closed source app?
Are there services out there for this sort of thing or do you just have to be forever diligent?
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
IT looks like star messanger made good. Their source code is on their front page. http://www.starmessenger.net/StarMessenger_src.zip
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.
Don't save Windows XP! http://www.petitiononline.com/jjw1xp/petition.html
I really wish free software projects wouldn't give in so easily all the time. By not doing anything anymore once the license terms have been satisfied again, they're just teaching companies that it's economically sound to rip them off - after all, you don't lose anything if you get caught, and you gain something if you don't.
This isn't good, though, as it will only encourage the less-than-scrupulous companies to commit further license violations, many of which *will* go undetected. It's one thing to essentially take a product, slap a new name on it, and then try to sell it (like was the case in the CherryOS case) or at least claim it as your own; that's easily detectable. Taking code from a GPL'ed library, though, for example, and integrating that into your $10K+ enterprise application, will most likely not be noticed, even though it is just as illegal.
As such, I'd really like to see an actual lawsuit some time where the developers of the project that was ripped off seek (punitive) damages, and maybe, if the case allows for it, press criminal charges against the company executives, too. Violating a free software license is *no* small matter - it's just as illegal and immoral as it is to press and sell illegally-produced copies of Windows, for example, and companies need to realize that.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
I don't think that (b) should ever be an acceptable option.
It's too easy for a company to violate the GPL and calculate the risk of getting caught and the cost of implementing a solution to replace the GPL component.
These rip-offs are a bit of proof that Miranada is the best open source multiprotocol IM client around.
Give it a try if you haven't already!
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.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
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.
Are you prepared and willing to finance this legal battle you propose? Remember, lawyers are not cheap. And many open source developers are students who can barely afford to eat Kraft Dinner, let alone afford a lawyer to defend the copyright on a piece of software they're not making any direct financial gains from. If you want this courtroom battle, then you'll have to finance it yourself.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
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!
>Miranada is the best open source multiprotocol IM client around
How about multi-platform? Sure well-coded OSS ported to Windows is cool (eg The GIMP), but Windows-only OSS?
It's verging on hypocritical idealogically (if it could be ported, it should) and very few Windows end-users are ever going to compile it from source (certainly more than 3 commands on Windows (exception perl modules))
I think you are one of about maybe 250 people who think there is a double standard when it comes to copyright issues.
Let me try to clarify a few points... maybe then there will be 249 people left without a clue:
1. If the situation were reversed (closed/proprietary source included within an OSS project) there would be a huge stink about it. So make no mistake. It would be immensely easy to show and the perps would be shamed out of the community. I think that's the reason it probably doesn't happen...(that often? I've never heard of it before.)
2. What makes "us" angry about big companies doing bad things is attempting to and often succeeding in taking away our rights and freedoms in order to secure their business model. I don't think there has been a single instance of people getting pissed off over a company embracing and following the GPL rules. In fact, when it happens, we generally flock to these companies in droves. Linksys is a perfect example of this effect. They use Linux in their WRT54G and it's incredibly popular as a result. Speaking only for myself, I look for the Linksys label now when getting small network equipment.
This stuff has nothing to do with music and movies, so don't even go there. It's not the same thing in my mind nor in the minds of others I reckon. It would only become similar if we attempted to make money from copying CDs and DVDs and claimed that we created those works ourselves.
I only wish physical goods could be shared in the way software, music and video can be shared... hunger would be a forgotten problem. (Sure, you can take my sandwich to make a copy for yourself...) If everyone had everything they ever wanted, what would the world come to though? Maybe I'll write a book and give it out to the world for free.
This would make more sense if you weren't comparing making an unauthorized copy of something for personal use,
to taking someone else's product, repackaging it, and reselling it as a commercial venture.
But even then trying to reduce the views of the millions of people who read slashdot down to a single viewpoint is asinine.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Everybody go to their contact page, fill it out with dummy information, and submit it.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
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.)
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
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.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Straw man arguments are never okay.
Observing people on a message board who feel some way about A,
then observing people on same message board who feel some way about B,
then going "AHA! This message board has hypocritical views on A!",
is never anything but stupid. You want to complain about some hypothetical opinion? Fine. Find someone expressing it first, then explain why it's hypocritical. Don't just set up a big box labeled "HYPOCRITE" in a public space, then try to back random people into it.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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.
Digital Citizen
It's not a contract, but nevertheless, whether you license a program you developed or not or under which terms is your choice. You don't get a license to use the program because you downloaded it; in fact, you don't get a license in that sense at all. Rather, you *have* a license, because the developer decided, at some point, to license his program to everyone on the planet.
And that's just the point: it's not about downloading, it's about whether you (the person) are allowed to use the program under certain license terms or not.
So, all in all... you agreed to the license, and the license stated that the developer can take away your rights (and in fact does so automatically) under certain circumstances. You can't reacquire the license by redownloading the program; your rights to use the program under that license are gone, and it's up to the rights holder to decide whether you'll get them back or not. Of course, the GPL *is* no contract, so you're not bound by it and can instead opt to refuse to accept it at all. However, in *that* case, the only rights you still have are those that you are guaranteed by copyright law, anyway, and those do not include use, distribution, modification etc. of the program.
In other words: you don't have to play by the rules. But you have to accept the rules to enter the playing field (which is private property), and if you, at some point, decide that you don't want to do so after all, you'll have to leave the playing field again.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
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?