Slashdot Mirror
Alleged GPL Violation Spurs Accusations, Lawsuit
lisah writes "Linux.com is reporting that Alexander Maryanovsky, the developer of Jin (a Java-based chess client), has filed a lawsuit alleging that International Chess University has violated several aspects of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Maryanovsky claims that the online chess training website and its CEO, Alexander Rabinovitch, are in violation of both his copyright and the GPL by distributing software that is based on Jin. According to the report, though Rabinovitch is dismissing most of the claims leveled against him, he has apparently left his native Israel for Canada and declines to give his exact whereabouts." Newsforge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
It's not like they are stealing or anything. And really, if people want to do this sort of thing no one is hurt here.
This Story has already been posted on Slashdot.
GPL Gets Its Day in Court in Israel
echo YOUR_OPINION >
GASP! You're kidding! I better run there right now and catch up!
That sounds even harsher than what the BSA does to Microsoft pirates.
Newsforge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
Yes, they are, but we don't feel the need to point out that fact constantly.
Now, if you mentioned that Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG, that would be a relevant disclosure statement. I'm suprised no one mentioned it.
"Newsforge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG"
Should that be "Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG"?
kinda hard to prove proprietary software uses gpl code when you only have the binaries.
---
According to the report, though Rabinovitch is dismissing most of the claims leveled against him, he has apparently left his native Israel for Canada and declines to give his exact whereabouts.
"I've done nothing wrong and if anyone needs me I'll be in my secret underground chess igloo."
-- You give me beer, I give you condo.
-
The whole socket thing is meant for something else. Staying in the realm of chess, there's a generic chess protocol that is used to interface engines with clients. If you have a server and a client communicating over such a generic protocol, and one of them is distributed under GPL, it doesn't mean that the other one also has to be GPL, because neither is a derived work of the other (again, IANAL).
Finally, regarding EULA - GPL is not a EULA. He can distribute the binary client under a restrictive license, but he has to provide the sources under GPL. Rabinovitch seems to be in non-compliance here as well.
The Raven
This is the chance for the FSF to actually show its mettle in the courtroom. More is at stake here than the damages. Basically, the real point that is going to be made here is: Do gnu/bsd style licensed software works create enough revenue to hire big lawyers to take on the suit? If the answer is no, is there any reason to continue with this style of licensing? I'm pretty sure Berkeley will always back up their stuff with a torrent of papers (undergrad law students get put up to everything!) but the eff is full of a bunch of volunteers that actually get paid for stuff. They won't take on a team of lawyers for free, or only principle. I guess it's time to donate to the eff /.ers! :)
Having read the article, it seems that it really comes down to this: The IChessU client connects to Jin through sockets, and Maryanovsky claims that the intimacy of this connection makes the two programs one. Thus, the code for the IChessU client must be published. Rabinovitch says this isn't so, they are two separate things. But what it really comes down to is, once again, the Open Source people don't like the fact that someone is using GPL'd code to make money without "giving back" even when there is no real violation of the GPL. It's a loophole for sure, but it's there and it's not a secret. If Maryanovsky wanted to have more control over the use of his code, he should have chosen a different license.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
As we all know, P2P removes all licensing agreements from software, music, and videos.
I'm not a programmer, so I don't know the details, but there are programs to do this with the required know-how. I remember that Sony's XCP DRM (remember the whole rootkit fiasco?) was discovered to be using parts of VLC's code. That's the only example I can name right now, but I've heard of at least three other similar discoveries.
i vity-indeed
http://sam.zoy.org/blog/2005-11-21-suspicious-act
Couldn't have summed it up better myself. Thread has been beaten!
"Linking" is a well-understood term-of-art in comptuer science and "talking through socket" doesn't qualify.
Sounds to me like Rabinovitch could answer Maryanovsky's objections by distributing source to the Jin-plus-sockets-adapter and source to a do-nothing socket-plugin to replace his chat application (without performing its chat function). That would make the modified Jin compile and run from the supplied sources - as Jin - without the proprietary code.
(It would also provide a skeleton in case somebody else wanted to build an open-source chat plugin that connects to Jin via Rabinovitch's mods.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
it could be worse, one of the parties involved could have been muslim. is jihad in the name of GPL justified?
[Rabinovich] now points to online articles that he believes supports his position, such as Eric Schnell's and Jason Rumney's blogs.
Eric Schnell got the whole thing backwards. He thinks that Jin has an A/V module, which IChessU decided not to use and thus do not publish its source code. From his blog:
From I can make out, Jin's creator Alexander Maryanovsky's problem with IChessU is that while IChessU has utilized Jin's code, they are not distributing Jin's entire source code. An A/V module in Jin is not being used by IChessU and therefore the source code is not included.
I've tried to respond to his blog, but his captcha seems to be broken. I've emailed him but got no response so far.
I couldn't find anything related on Jason Rumney's blog, even with a google search.
"All the articles were produced only by Maryanovsky people/fans," [Rabinovich] says, "which is fine because they are published in developer's magazines/sites..
Where would Rabinovich have GPL violation related articles posted? A cooking magazine? Are Slashdot, Yediot Ahronot and Arstechnica all my fans? I didn't know I was that popular.
"He also said," Maryanovsky writes, "that they are planning to wrap Jin in a layer that would allow it to be controlled via a socket. I told [Rabinovitch] that I believe this would still, most likely, be violating the GPL." Despite this opinion, IChessU proceeded with its plan [snip]
That's wrong. As I mention on my page, they abandonded that idea and proceeded to use Jin in a straightforward manner.
Rabinovitch, however, writes [snip] The guy is hurt
Gee, I wonder why I'd be hurt? Could it be because Rabinovich stole my work?
Rabinovitch rejects the charge of bad faith negotiations because it is made without any explanation or evidence.
As I explained to him in my response, there's was no need to explain anything or bring evidence. The letter was to him - he already knows all the evidence! He was there at the negotiations!
Writing to NewsForge, Rabinovitch states that all source code was posted to the IChessU site, including that for the audio-visual module -- a claim that cannot be substantiated, since all code has now been removed from the IChessU site. He characterizes the audio/voice module as a separate program that "has nothing in common with the original Jin (it is even written in a different computer language!).".
So if the source code to the A/V module was released under the GPL, as required, why argue that it's a separate program? Not that it makes any difference, as that is exactly the point of the GPL - even unrelated code becomes "infected", as long as it's part of the same application. If I didn't want unrelated code infected, I'd release Jin under the LGPL. That is the whole difference between the GPL and the LGPL!
What if we integrated into Jin a Microsoft Word button -- would Mr. Maryanovsky then claim that we should publish the Microsoft source code as well?
No, I would then claim that they cannot publish the resulting application at all, as the GPL clearly states:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
As has been pointed out many times - you do not have any rights to a GPLed application except for the rights that the GPL gives you. The GPL does not give you the right to add a "Microsoft Word button" to Jin (excep
If it's a product of some member of the RIAA it is coming from a corporation that has been found guilty of repeated violations of the law as regards price fixing and payola. This has gone on for generations now, not decades or years or a few isolated instances, but overlappingly large amounts of times for generations-yet the "law" appears unwilling and unable to stop them. So much so that now it is a "status quo". Want another example? Microsoft. another? Haliburton. Another? Lockheed-Martin. Another-GE. There are thousands of examples. If it's corporate and large and been around for awhile, a good bet is to assume they are guilty of something pretty bad.
All have been charged with repeated violations of the law, fined a minimal amount, pass the costs of the fines on to the next sucker, and get to go about their business.
So, what are consumers to do when confronted with this?
In dealing with criminals, talking ethics..well..screw 'em! I know I have never received one penny in arrears from all the overpriced music I have purchased over the years. Price fixing as a cartel is illegal, period. Gaming the market, especially over the publically licensed airwaves-payola-is a pretty serious crime,even to the artists themselves. Who knows how much good talent never got the exposure they deserved based solely on payola and bribery to promote heavily "invested" formula bands? That the so called "law" has never shut those corporations (guilty of these crimes and represented hypocritically by the RIAA) down nor thrown any of the high level decision makers in prison for seriously large violations of the law is only more proof that the law itself-the system-is broken, and ethically bankrupt. The law makers and law enforcers and law judges are themselves compromised and corrupt.
We exist in a state of corporate fascism. Not just as regards this music issue but across the board. The evidence is *overwhelming*. Anything people can do to resist or fight back is ethically moral. The corporate fascists who have bought off and corrupted the so called "law" and have complete control of the so called "government" are the ones who struck first, and took the gloves off. They picked those hardball rules, they insisted on them, so too bad when those rules get used back at them, they receive no pity from me, and I doubt from too many people anymore.
Isn't this the same thing Dave Watanabe is accused of, right down to the sockets vs. linking debate?
Viper is the preferred editor of the Emacs operating system.
How is anybody hurt by the commercialization of BSD-licensed code? First of all, the pre-fork code will still be available under the BSD license. So if the community wants to further develop it, that can happen without problem. Nobody is restricted from continuing the development.
The commercialized version may offer features that would not or could not have been developed for the open source version in a financially-viable way. Yes, sometimes it is in everyone's best interest for there to be commercial development of certain features. It is often the original developers of the BSD-licensed software who do such development, and thus they benefit financially.
Such commercialization often offers many jobs for engineers and developers. Take SunOS, which had its roots in BSD UNIX. It has allowed for many tens of thousands of people to hold jobs, not just at Sun, but at companies which use Sun systems.
Many times we see such commercial entities contribute code back to the open source version. This happend frequently with BSDI and FreeBSD. It is still happening today to some extent with Apple, FreeBSD, and NetBSD.
I know the GPL supporters have their ideological reasons for disliking the terms of the BSD license. But the fact remains that the BSD license does not have the restrictions of the GPL, and this is often a very beneficial thing, as it does allow for far easier commercialization. Such commercialization often leads to many jobs for developers, and in many cases directly benefits the open source projects from which the code was originally taken. It's actually the complete opposite of being harmful. The benefits are quite great.
The GPL allows for "mere bundling" with propritary software.
Whether it is "mere bundling" or a derived work most likely depend not on the specific mechanism the two components use to communicate, but whether it happens through standard, predefined protocol.
If Jin already included a socket interface and a documented protocol for remote control, Maryanovsky has to live with the fact that someone used it (or he should have used the Alladin Licence).
If it was something Rabinovitch created for IChessU, he will have to pay up. He is not going to convince a judge it is "mere bundling".
How come so many Commie Ruskies are in Israel ?? That's the last place I'd want to be. Maybe that's why that Commie left . .
There is no such thing as "a violation of the GPL". What these people have violated is copyright law.
In RMS's ideal world {and mine for that matter}, it would be law that every piece of software had to come with Source Code {this being necessary for the meaningful exercise of Freedoms One and Three}, either at the time it was obtained or anytime later on request; and failure to supply the Source Code on request would be punishable. Source Code isn't the only requirement, but we're simplifying a little here. Anyway, Freedoms Zero and Two can be taken by force if necessary; at the present time, it is orders of magnitude more difficult {though mathematically not impossible} to obtain Source Code by forcible techniques.
The GPL is a sort of "second best" approach, a way to approximate the ideal situation using existing laws.
Existing copyright law already says that if you want to distribute copies of something someone else originally made and which is still under protection of copyright, you usually need permission in writing from that person. The law actually gives you some limited right to make copies in the name of "fair dealing" or "fair use", which nothing can take away -- even if you promise not to exercise your statutory rights, you can go ahead and do so anyway without fear of repercussions. The other person is a sucker for believing in a worthless promise.
Now, if you have written a program and want people to use it, it's clear that you have to make some provision for distributing copies. This is where copyright law comes into play. If, as a fine upstanding citizen, you want to ensure the Four Freedoms for everyone who uses your program, then you can give permission to distribute copies of your program so long as they preserve the Four Freedoms for everyone who receives a copy from them.
The GPL is a letter of permission to do things above and beyond what the Law of the Land allows, on certain conditions. What it basically says is that: you get Freedom Zero whatever happens, and you get Freedom Two if and only if you don't seek to deny any subsequent recipient of the program from you any of the Four Freedoms. If you don't comply with the conditions of the GPL, then it doesn't give you any permission to do anything, and normal copyright law applies.
If you make a derivative work of a GPL program and don't show it to anyone else, then the Law of the land says you can do that: it's Fair Dealing. However, once you overstep the bounds of Fair Dealing, you require written permission. And the GPL only affords permission if you comply with certain conditions. If you do not comply with the conditions of the GPL, then you are in violation of copyright law.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
So you think that the GPL is unfair and unreasonable. So ignore it! That's right, just pretend that the GPL isn't even there! It even says right in the GPL itself that you can do this. (Paragraph 5: "You are not required to accept this license.")
There's your answer. Act as if the GPL doesn't exist, and do whatever you want with the software (as long as it's legal, of course)! Comb through the source code. Check out how it works. Make a bazillion copies. Change it around, and make your own version of the program. Better yet, combine it with another brilliant program of yours to make a super-program. Sell it and make a million--
Oh, wait. That's against the law --you'd be breaking copyright. You wouldn't want to do something illegal, would you?
Fine, just bundle it for free when you sell your--
Oh, darn. That's not legal either.
Umm, be a nice guy in general and post it on the web for people to download? Donate the program to a charitable organization?
Nope, that's against the law, too. Damn.
Hmm, what to do? Well, maybe you can ask the original programmer to sell you the rights to the program, so you can use it. Or perhaps you could give royalties. With enough financial incentive, maybe the programmer would be willing to transfer the rights to you.
But sometimes software is created by more than one person, and you'd have to negotiate with each of the authors to get the rights to the complete program. Sometimes even contacting one of the original authors can be a big hassle.
If only there were some way for the authors to state ahead of time, under what sort of conditions they would be willing to give you the rights to their program. This way, if you didn't want to negotiate, you'd still have the option of just fulfilling their conditions, and they've already agreed ahead of time that you get their permission --without your even needing to contact them! You know, some sort of text that they could include with their program (or put up on their web site) that explains all this clearly. They could call it a "document of giving permission". Hey, come to think of it, someone should come up with a word in the English language that means a "document of giving permission".
I'll let you take it from there. Let us know if you come up with any great ideas.
[I actually said this before, a few months ago. This is from my comment at http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=188343&
If someone who's not new to Slashdot still thinks it's the GPL that's causing problems, I would have to consider the possibility that the "misunderstanding" was deliberate.
Anyway, bleah. This is getting old.]
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
GPL v3 will probably fix this loophole, which is excactly the intention of it.
FICS - the free internet chess server was similarly hijacked of its code by ICC, using and tweaking the code for commercial purposes without giving anything back.
Someone with more knowledge can probably fill me in here..
Or did you mean to imply (from the laundry list of statements you discounted above) that you wouldn't believe him if he said "water is wet"?
I'm just curious ... If I had actually moved to another country and taken a new job, I'm not sure I'd be all that interested in telling the world where to find me either.
Regarding the suit, I hope justice is done.
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.