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.
This Story has already been posted on Slashdot.
GPL Gets Its Day in Court in Israel
echo YOUR_OPINION >
Naw, that'd be a BSD-style license, not a GPL :)
That sounds even harsher than what the BSA does to Microsoft pirates.
Quoted from the article:
Pleading lack of time, Maryanovsky suggested that IChessU could either use Jin or pay him $4,000 for a commercial license instead.
So there was an unrestricted commercial license available for $4,000 and instead they took the GPL version and violated its distribution license. If the accusations about license violation are true, this is just as much piracy as selling illegal versions of Windows or any other software.
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.
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?
And in its own bizarre manner /. admits the RIAA has a point.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
kinda hard to prove proprietary software uses gpl code when you only have the binaries.
---
Not to go too far down this path but I think the _average_ /.er is more miffed with the process the RIAA is using rather than that they are suing. The flood of Jon Doe suits are absurd. They should have to file one suit at a time based upon better evedence than they currently have been using.
/. crowd has about this.
Then again AFAIK no suit has gone all the way to trial, another beef the
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
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
Exactly, dude. That's what copyright law is for.
Though your sense of entitlement seems to be a tad overwhelming.
The GPL is a license that grants users far more rights than copyright law would normally allow. The alleged infringer here was in no sense restricted by the GPL; it gave him a bunch of rights that he had under certain conditions, and that he wouldn't otherwise have had under copyright law, and he is alleged to have broken those conditions while exercising the rights.
If your uncle lets you live in his house rent-free as long as you don't have any pets, then he is entitled to use the law to evict you and your ferret when he finds out you've breached the terms. Bitching about it just makes you look like a spoiled brat.
If you want to complain about restrictions in software licenses, try some proprietary licenses which bind you under contractual terms that force you to give up MORE rights than the ones that copyright law takes away from you. You're not allowed to reverse engineer Windows or sue Microsoft, for example, if you use their software.
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.
And in its own bizarre manner /. admits the RIAA has a point.
Leaving aside the point that there exists more than one person on Slashdot, it's notable that on software piracy threads, far more people tend to be against the idea of people profiting from copyright infringement, or doing so in a commercial context in some way. So this isn't connected to the RIAA suing grannies for downloading stuff to listen to.
As we all know, P2P removes all licensing agreements from software, music, and videos.
You forgot the last part: "- Or you could just walk away, but then you don't get to distribute derived works."
No, the average Slashdot is miffed that the can't "share" theri freinds (anonymous people on the internet = freinds in their world) music, software, etc. The think that because someone, somewhere, paid $14.99 for a CD, the artist has been compensated, along with everybody in between. They fail to see that the cost to reproduce that 1 CD does not equal the "production costs".
While the RIAA are generally shortsighted idiots (I've worked with them before), the average Slashdotter is a bigger idiot who doesn't grasp that if artists can't eat, they can't produce art.
You misunderstand me. The GPL is a grant of rights, not a restriction. It's not 'less restrictive', since it's not restrictive at all. What restricts you is copyright law. It's impossible to be sued, at least in the US, for breaching the GPL. The restrictions all come from copyright law, and if you breach the GPL, you'll be sued for a breach of copyright.
Compared to the extreme permissive licenses like the MIT or BSD licenses, the GPL lifts less of the restrictions placed by copyright law, though. You don't get the right to restore the copyright law restrictions that the GPL lifted, for one. It also lets copyright law bar you from distributing binary-only copies in order to make it impractical to modify the software.
While there are plenty of good reasons why people might prefer thoes licenses, it strikes me that bitching about not having those rights, in the name of freedom, is a bit like a southern US plantation owner complaining about the loss of his freedom to own slaves...
Couldn't have summed it up better myself. Thread has been beaten!
I love this statement. I especially love rephrasing it: "We'd normally chop off your whole arm for this, but we're only going to chop off your hand. Consider yourself lucky."
Less restrictive is still restrictive.
My rephrasing: "Normally I wouldn't give you anything, but here's $10, consider yourself lucky", and then you whine that I didn't give you $20.
But neither of these analogies are really relevant here (not redistributing someone's software doesn't infringe on you in the same way as forceably chopping off body parts).
Do you criticise everyone except those who release everything they do into the public domain?
Wild guess - you're stirring up the GPL vs BSD debate, aren't you? You're pushing the gambit that the GPL is not actually free while the BSD license is. Unfortunately - the BSD license is also restrictive. So shall we just jump to the logical conclusion and call for releasing all code to the Public Domain?
Of course - that completely ignores the reasons behind the GPL and BSD licenses. But hey - let's not bother with such complexity.
You can use it anyway you like. However, when it comes to distributing it (for personal gain), you don't have carte blanche. Bear in mind that you got it for free.
Wow. I'm amazed that somebody on Slashdot actually understands the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement.
http://outcampaign.org/
You missed the parent post that was refering about RIAA , since it is an anonimous coward it stayed on 0 points, so I guess that it was hidden for you.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
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.
Only if you are a business and forced to obey the laws in your country, such as copyright. Of course, you can always choose to ignore the law and pirate for profit..
...
I believe this is the business model a lot of slashdotters choose:
1. Pirate!!1!
2.
3. Profit!
"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."
Record companies get 99% of their revenue from the sale of records, so selling at a loss is not an option. As it is, many record companies end up with net margins of less than 20% (I believe the Canadian recording industry as a whole barely hit 10% last year) so they don't have a lot of room to play with on pricing, either. This will be wholly misunderstood by those who don't get the difference between gross margin and net margin, but it is correct. However, things might be totally different in Brazil.
"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."
Curse those greedy musicians for refusing to let their recordings be freely distributed!
Seriously, though, there are lots of options. That old standby, radio (both terrestrial and streaming) is still a viable choice. If you want free MP3s, there's legaltorrents, and mp3.com and garageband.com have free downloads. Those are just aggregators -- many indie and unsigned artists release tracks on their web sites or via the P2P networks. MySpace and a few of the social networking sites have lots of bands online that will allow you to stream or download their stuff. But, I understand that as a Brazilian, you might be required by law to only use Orkut.
If anybody's unsure as to why it's often easier to find good open source software than it is to find good free music, it's important to understand that it's typically easier on an order of magnatude to contribute to an open source project than it is to rent a studio (or build your own), engineer and produce your own music. 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. However, this fact does not make music piracy "different" than software piracy. We should respect others' rights, whether their tool of choice is a QWERTY keyboard or a Roland keyboard.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
You can use it anyway you like. However, when it comes to distributing it (for personal gain), you don't have carte blanche. Bear in mind that you got it for free.
Not trying to be nitpicky, but you missed two points. One: The GPL doesn't differentiate between distributing it for free or profit. Distribution is distribution. The GPL doesn't care if you make money or not. (See the preamble of the GNU/GPL)
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". Of course, you would be free to give it to anyone or sell it for any price you could get, as long as you complied with the GPL.
It may sound minor, but these are major points in the GPL. "Free" just happens to mean 2 things in English. In the GPL, free refers to freedom, not cost or profit. The GPL isn't simple at first glance, but it makes good sense for a lot of projects. The GPL is FOR making money, not against.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
However, things might be totally different in Brazil.
Indeed they are: here, some "independent" labels (aka, not the big ones) somehow manage to sell a CD for ONE THIRD of big label's price. Unfortunately for us, there are few of those and most artists are more easily seducted by big labels.
Regarding radio, it's really not a choice. Commercial radios nowadays only play "recent" music (aka music whose label payed fat payola). And usually their selection sucks big time (IMO).
And no, Brazilians are not required to use Orkut, it is just that this specific (and rather, limited) social networking site somehow spread like wildfire here. This "brazilian invasion" already happened before with fotolog for some unknown reason, when Brazilian's behaviour there brought fotolog to their knees with bandwidth cost. Nowadays fotolog impose series of limitations on the service usage.
I'm not defending piracy, but I feel there are some economic reasons pushing people for it. I propose that, removing big label's (along with payola) from this equation, there would be almost none piracy.
Koan: Imagine a dead artist. Am I "stealing" from this artist when I choose pirate music over a legal CD?
"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
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 :-).
[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.
"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.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
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.
On a runon sentence of that magnitude? I wouldn't even have known where to begin :P
Lucky indeed, since without the GPL you wouldn't have an "arm" at all since copyright took it away.
Of course, if you find the GPL too "restrictive" you can simply disregard it. You don't need to accept the terms of the GPL to use any GPLed software. GPLed software is merely a copyrighted work, and nothing in copyright law restricts you from simply using a copyrighted work you legally obtained (which you can easily do from any number of the many places that legally distribute GPLed software).
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
Repeat after me:
THE GPL DOES NOT GOVERN USE, IT GOVERNS DISTRIBUTION.
Life is too short to proofread.
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".
I'm not. While individual posters often have poor understanding of copyright, trademark and patent law, on the whole Slashdot seems quite well informed compared to other online forums that do not focus exclusively on legal issues.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
The GPL governs how you use the code. It dictates how you must behave if you change it.
DRM advocates could say the exact same thing--DRM doesn't govern use, it governs distribution.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Well, they could, but they'd be lying. If you're trying to tell me that Apple's DRM doesn't stop me from using the track I downloaded in any way I'd like (for instance, playing on a non-Apple music player), you need to do some more research.
By its nature, DRM impacts use. If it didn't impact use, it wouldn't impact distribution either. This is because it's a technological rather than legal remedy, and only a legal remedy is able to distinguish between use and distribution. Example: how would you tell the difference between stripping DRM to put on a music player that doesn't support the DRM (use), and taking that same music player and letting your friend copy the non-DRM'd tracks off it (distribution)?
Pirate Party UK
No it doesn't! This was exactly the point which was being made. I can take GPL code and change it in any way I like and use that modified version and the GPL license imposes no conditions on me at all.
However, if I take my modified version of the code and pass (or sell) it on to someone else then the GPL kicks in. As soon as I distribute it I have to then release my modified code under the GPL.
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 . .
Tools get better and cheaper, no matter what business you're in, but you still have to have that talent.
So how's that different from programming? (It was you who made that comparison, not me).
That doesn't mean that you need an expensive engineer and producer in a rented studio to produce music. It would be like saying all free software projects need to rent their own office with their own programmer. They don't. Free software programmers do it as a hobby. So do musicians.
With regard to the gear, a decent sound card is not enough if you do not have quality microphones and proper acoustics.
Of course. If you intend to record something, you need a decent microphone (not several). Proper acoustics can be made with wool blankets, egg-cartons, whatever... This is still not putting the price above what the average person with a job can afford.
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.
So what? Even the cheapest (or entirely free) studio software today, is something producers 20 years ago wouldn't even have dreamed to lay their hands on. It is more than capable of producing a decent-quality CD-release. Of course, in the proper hands, the more expensive stuff might produce even better results, although compared with some extra talent, it means zilch. Try to ask BT which of his tools are essential next time, not just which of them are the most fun (and realize that his answer may be far above what most musicians/producers need, if they are not into electronic music)
But mostly it's a question of scale and features. The cheap stuff is cut-down version of the expensive stuff, with the same quality, but less tracks, etc... And the cheap stuff may lack some "professional" features such as surround mixing, hardware faders, etc... Apart from that, it's just not that much you can do to increase or decrease quality with digital mixing. Floating point sums are still floating point sums.
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!
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}.
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]
That old standby, radio carries the songs that the RIAA pays them to. It's called Payola.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
What is what I meant and said in the parent with:
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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?
Not at all. This is not a case of a product. This is simply copyright. Some guy spent a lot of time and work writing a program that solves a problem. Cool. They say anyone that wants to can use that program. Cool. If anyone wants to take all the source code and use it to make another program, however, they need to negotiate a license to do that with the author, as per copyright. Via the GPL, this author has made up a standard set of payments (non-monetary) by which you can obtain such a license.
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?
If you're making modified copies of the source code and copying them and you have not negotiated a license to let you do so and you're not making the payments for the standard license he offers to everyone then, yeah. You're breaking the law by copying and republishing his work, the same as if you changed a few words of the new Stephen King novel and started selling it as your own original work without negotiating a license. You should expect to lose a lawsuit in either case.
Not to go too far down this path but I think the _average_ /.er is more miffed with the process the RIAA is using rather than that they are suing.
No, the "Information wants to be free" division of slashdot do not want the process to take part at all. They don't want any settlements, the small suits, the big suits, the suits against the tools or the companies profiteering on it (Napster, Grokster), the technological blocks (DRM), the laws (DMCA) and any and all lawsuits based on it.
They should have to file one suit at a time based upon better evedence than they currently have been using.
Yes, because that'd slow them down to a complete halt which is what slashdot wants anyway. What reasonably more than ip logs do you want them to start out with? Port scanning? Hack into your computer? Oh, that wouldn't cause an uproar at all. Then they go pursuing more evidence through the courts, and that is somehow wrong too.
The only conclusion is that slashdot doesn't want them to be able to find any evidence, even if the people are guilty as all hell (not saying that everyone is, but that with slashdot's IANALs you'd never catch a single one that was). Which just brings us back to the very first point, that they don't want RIAA/MPAA to protect their legal rights to begin with. Pushing a few innocent people in front of them so they can continue to pirate with impunity.
Note: By "slashdot" I refer to the opinions that get modded up to +5, which presumably have a sort of popular support around here.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
If someone produces some sort of product and puts a bunch of limitations on how I can or cannot use said product
Your premise is incorrect. The GPL is based on copyright law. There is no product; there is only a copyable work, as in a work of art. There are no restrictions on use, there are only restrictions on copying, distributing, and performing said work.
Think about it. The RIAA is not complaining about how you are listening to music; they are complaining about you copying, distributing, and performing their music.
@HbFyo0$k8 tH!$
Brasilians do not use other social network sites because everyone is on orkut, a social network site is only good when your friends are on it. And I agree, orkut sucks, but all my friends, and even people who I thougth I would never heard again are there, so I am on orkut also. :P
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
The GPL governs how you use the code. It dictates how you must behave if you change it.
Wrong. Change anything you like. The GPL only kicks in when you start DISTRIBUTING.
DRM advocates could say the exact same thing--DRM doesn't govern use, it governs distribution.
As another poster said, They could but they'd be lying.
Either you don't have any clue what DRM is or you are deliberately lying.
It seems pretty clear that you don't have a good understanding of the GPL or DRM. I suggest you do some reading on the subject rather than just making things up.
Life is too short to proofread.
"Compared to the extreme permissive licenses like the MIT or BSD licenses"
Interesting you would use these words to describe the BSD and MIT license. Wouldn't the software freedom fighters of the world want a more permissive license model?
"While there are plenty of good reasons why people might prefer thoes licenses, it strikes me that bitching about not having those rights, in the name of freedom, is a bit like a southern US plantation owner complaining about the loss of his freedom to own slaves..."
I think you have things a little mixed up here. If GPLd code was allowed to be closed up and re-sold (without re-releasing the source), the original code would still be there. It would not take away any freedoms (you could still get to the original source). It would only prevent the additions (which weren't the communities to begin with) from being released, thus restricting the freedom of the programmer.
That was what I was thinking exactly. A better analogy would be the RIAA suing someone for downloading mp3s, burning their own CDs of these mp3s, and then selling them. You won't find many slashdotters who would stick their neck out to support that situation.