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.

Comments

Re:Why?

[mingot]

So let me get this straight: If someone produces some sort of product and puts a bunch of limitations on how I can or cannot use said product that instead of disregarding those limitations and doing what I want that I should actually either respect those limitations or do without the product altogether? And are you also saying that if I do decide to disregard those limitations placed on the product that a reasonable avenue of recourse for the producer of that product is to bring suit against me?

Re:Why?

[fmobus]

Except that their product is absurdly overpriced and most of the profit goes straight to big label's pocket anyway (not to mention payola money). If an artist wants to make real money, he should be on the road, sweating, making shows. I refuse to pay 1/10th of my wage (in Brazil) for a CD, but I'd happily pay the same money for a show (although great shows rarely happens in my city), where I can see my favorit artist performing in an unique manner. If big labels lowered their CD prices, their sales would ramp up and more people would be interested in their artists shows. It's called Loss leader.

Moreover, I refuse to see how can one music piracy is related to software piracy after all. When you need software, you can (mostly) always set for a free/open version. When you want music (aka culture), there is no such option.

Re:Why?

[joto]

I've contributed to open source projects just by using my $500 Mac Mini and a few hours of my time. By comparison, a decent studio and engineer might cost you $500 a day.

Uh, not any more. A decent studio consists of a home computer, a good soundcard, and some software (often included with the computer or sound card). A decent studio engineer can be yourself or a friend.

If you think otherwise, either you haven't followed what's been happening in the last years in music software, or you have different concepts of what's "decent" when it comes to music studios and to programming labs. (Personally, I wouldn't even consider a programming lab decent unless I had 3 widescreen monitors on my desk connected to my workstation, a network of at least 1 other workstation and a server, and software for at least $50,000. And I also need to pay a programmer to sit there :-).

Re:Why?

[shark72]

"Uh, not any more. A decent studio consists of a home computer, a good soundcard, and some software (often included with the computer or sound card). A decent studio engineer can be yourself or a friend. If you think otherwise, either you haven't followed what's been happening in the last years in music software, or you have different concepts of what's "decent" when it comes to music studios and to programming labs."

Tools get better and cheaper, no matter what business you're in, but you still have to have that talent. It's quite possible to create something that sounds decent in your home studio, and it's quite possible (but unlikely) that you or somebody you know happens to be a trained recording engineer. Good engineers and good producers make it look easy, but it's not -- most stuff recorded at home by amateurs still sounds like it was recorded at home, by amateurs. Talented engineers and producers are generally worth the money.

With regard to the gear, a decent sound card is not enough if you do not have quality microphones and proper acoustics. Even the folks who create entirely electronic music largely do not rely on the free or the cheap software -- BT told me once that he prototypes stuff on Acid Express, but his full set of tools goes way beyond that.

No doubt -- the explosion in inexpensive audio gear has allowed thousands upon thousands of amateur musicians to putter around with their home studios, and as covered above, there are indeed examples of high quality, popular music being produced quite cheaply. But good recordings generally still cost some serious money to make.

Re:Why?

[ajs318]

And not all GPL software is "free" as in price. I can make a software package under the GPL (independently or a derived package), but not distribute it to anyone but you for $1000. As long as I give you the source code along with the binaries, I am complying with Section 3a) of the GPL and do not need to provide it to any 3rd party 3b). Thus, it was always "free as in speech" but was never "free as in beer".

However, once one person has paid the $1000 for a copy of the program, there is then nothing to stop that person from distributing the same program for $10 {they'll break even after selling 100 copies} -- or even for nothing. This effectively places an upper limit on the price that can be charged for a copy of a program {the unavoidable costs of the act of distribution impose a lower limit}. Even if nobody has $1000 upfront, a thousand people could get together and each put in $1 to buy one copy. Thanks to the distribution rights afforded by the GPL, they would be permitted to make another 999 copies -- so, depending upon how you look at it, either everyone receives $1000 of software for $1, or someone is charging $1000 for $1 of software.

Now, that's how a real Free Market works -- and it's interesting to see just how much it winds up some of the supposed proponents of Capitalism and the Free Market {what they're really in favour of is oligopoly, cartels and protection from competition by upstarts seeking to enter the market}.