New Method To Detect and Prove GPL Violations

qwerty writes "A paper to be presented at the upcoming academic conference Automated Software Engineering describes a new method to detect code theft and could be used to detect GPL violations in particular. While the co-called birthmarking method is demonstrated for Java, it is general enough to work for other languages as well. The API Benchmark observes the interaction between an application and (dynamic) libraries that are part of the runtime system. This captures the observable behavior of the program and cannot be easily foiled using code obfuscation techniques, as shown in the paper (PDF). Once such a birthmark is captured, it can be searched for in other programs. By capturing the birthmarks from popular open-source frameworks, GPL-violating applications could be identified."

Comments

new use of old trick

[toolslive]

I used to be a research assistent, and at university, we used this technique to see if students copied their assignments. They could rename variables, move pieces of text, change comments all the way they liked, but the execution profile stayed the same. We caught a lot of students, and they never figured out how we did it.

Re:new use of old trick

[mark-t]

How did you know they were cheating and didn't derive their similar approaches from a common origin (presumably material that was presented in class or else from the textbook)? My experience with marking for a computer science professor showed that about 80% of the students approached any given programming assignment almost exactly the same way in terms of their final implementation... their common origin being something the teacher described during a lecture.

Re:new use of old trick

[calebt3]

He was a research assistant, not a professor.

Re:new use of old trick

[Just Some Guy]

How did you know they were cheating and didn't derive their similar approaches from a common origin (presumably material that was presented in class or else from the textbook)?

Amen to that. This is an old story, but I think it bears repeating. A friend of mine and I got "caught" turning in identical code for an assignment. I mean, identical. Same structures, variables, types, layout - everything. However, we wrote our programs separately and never saw each others' until our teacher asked about it.

It sounds improbable, but consider that:

1. We both directly transcribed variable names from the homework assignment. A sentence like "it is a fatal error condition for the user to specify a negative number of tasks" became "assert(numtasks >= 0);".
2. We used the same editor and the same indenting style.
3. We had done much of our homework together in previous classes because we tended to take the same approach to solving problems.
4. The assignment wasn't terribly complex to begin with, so the resulting code was only a few pages long.

We had a teacher who trusted us and we were both good students with good test grades, so it was dismissed as a humorous coincidence. I'm glad a human was willing to listen to our explanation and not just go along with the findings of an automated tester.

Re:new use of old trick

[Just Some Guy]

I take it your code was flawless?

Of course! ;-)

people who write flawless code can easily prove their innocence by answering a couple of questions about the implementation on the spot.

I think there was a bit of that, too: (pointing at me) "why did you do this?" "Because of this requirement in the last paragraph." (Pointing at friend) "and why didn't you use this approach?" "That wouldn 't have worked because of this part here."

Re:new use of old trick

[Azarael]

Or you could just use MOSS http://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/moss/ (or other) like everyone else.

Re:new use of old trick

[anothy]

just to demonstrate that this sort of overlap isn't just CS undergrads doing homework assignments, take a look at Ken Thompson's Turing award lecture, particularly this section:

In the ten years that [Dennis Ritchie and I] have worked together, I can recall only one case of miscoordination of work. On that occasion, I discovered that we both had written the same 20-line assembly language program. I compared the sources and was astounded to find that they matched character-for-character.

that would clearly fail this test, but it's simply the result of two guys working very closely together with similar styles for a very long time.

Re:new use of old trick

[kasperd]

Whether that approach gives false positives depends on the size and complexity of the piece of code they had to write. As a teaching assistent I have seen assignments that looked even more like copying than what you described, but even in that case they were eventually accepted. One time the students had to add some functionality to an assembler. All groups were given the same code to start with and just had to add one clearly defined piece of functionality. There is really not many ways to do that, so having two assignments looking suspiciously similar might not trigger any red flags. But when they also had accidentially added some whitespace in a piece of the code that they didn't even have to change, it looked a lot more suspicious. In a later assignment, they were asked to change the scheduler in Linux 2.2 to give each user the same share of CPU time. All groups came up with different solutions, except from two, which were identical except from variable names and white spacing. And that was the same two groups that had handed in something suspiciously similar in an earlier assignment.

Re:new use of old trick

[fmobus]

In my university, this is the method most teachers will use when they suspect something. Ask each student something about the implementation, how it should be changed to achieve something slightly different. In some cases, when they allow you to form groups to solve the assignment, they will ask each student in the group about the implementation.

Sounds to me the best way to catch copiers and leechers.

Re:new use of old trick

[SnowZero]

You sound like someone who got caught. Bitter?

Re:new use of old trick

[SnowZero]

How do you know he was an teaching assistant after 1998? AFAICT Moss wasn't available before then, and didn't seem to become popular until the 2003 paper, and we certainly didn't know about it when I was a TA on the east coast in early 1999. Not that it would have mattered for us, but it's also not compatible with the GPL (non-commercial use only), so you couldn't link it in as part of the rest of your submission system if it used anything GPL, unless you were careful.

So, there are some quite normal reasons, and maybe you should chill.

Re:new use of old trick

[daedae]

I remember something like this happening on a test I was grading a couple years ago, we flagged a whole pile of tests for having some...very peculiar wording describing an error condition. We set them all aside to double-check, then discovered that one of the instructors had used that wording on the slide and everybody had apparently memorized it.

Re:new use of old trick

[Azarael]

If it wasn't available then, that is certainly reasonable.
As far as the GPL goes, I'm pretty sure that's irrelevant as as far as I know, MOSS is a free service available for educational use.

Re:new use of old trick

[SnowZero]

Well, for the class I TA'ed, it was probably available, just not widely popular yet. Of course, cheaters are usually easy to catch, so even simple systems work pretty well. So, in their attempt to save time and effort, cheaters are often are bad at covering up their tracks. Anything that yields possible hits can be verified by human inspection. Why are almost all cheaters so lazy? Because if they weren't, they'd just do the assignment.

Cheaters in my classes tended to: (1) not correct misspellings or bugs in code (2) cheat with former or current project partners (3) hand in the written portion of the assignments directly stacked on each other, which then get graded immediately following each other.

Re:new use of old trick

[SnowZero]

Not really... That argument assumes that all classes teach the same subject: compromising verification systems and covering your tracks. Most classes in CS teach something else, with some examples being computer graphics, machine vision, and game programming. So, how has a computer vision professor failed to teach a student properly, if the student cheats and is caught in his class? At best, that's a computer security problem, which is normally an advanced enough class that cheaters don't make it that far. That weeding out of people who can't actually do the work is one reason why cheating is always most prevalent in introductory classes.

So, while the argument might make some sense in the right situation if you squint enough, it's about as valid as a criminal telling a police officer "You should thank me, because I'm the one keeping you employed." Sure, whatever.

Re:new use of old trick

[tucuxi]

I am a teaching assistant at a CS department. We have a homebrew source-code plagiarism detection system that works fine, but only performs static analysis (that is, does not execute the code). In my experience, you don't need to trace programs to find if they are source-code plagiarized. In a typical 1000-line C or Java program,
- It takes a long amount of time to copy+paste+rename+recomment+reengineer the code so that it escapes detection
- You have to be good at the reengineering step if you want to avoid automatic detection (we use a lexer to ignore variable names, comments and whitespace).
- If you fall short of a very good reingeneering, your code will be flagged by the system and manually inspected. And, if your renaming and recommenting is not good, you get called to the office to explain what happened.

There is a very interesting thing about plagiarism in a large assignment population. Once you have copied your code from someone, you may disguise your similarity to the original, but the reengineering you introduce to do so will also draw you away from the general population (think common programming idioms; nobody writes i=i+1 in a C for loop). Statistical copy detection is a lot easier than relying on one-vs-one distances.

We are not witch-hunters, all our students know what we use, and have access to the (LGPL'd) source-code (of course, students can't do statistical copy detection, because they don't have the samples; but they can read about it). We tell them just how we are going to apply the copy detection program. The rate of plagiarism has fallen to very low levels (the few who don't heed the warning) since we started using it systematically. Academic plagiarism detection, if well implemented, is not "shadenfreude" - it is levelling the playing field.

Re:new use of old trick

[FreakyLefty]

Years ago at university, a Software Engineering lecturer told us a tale of a mission critical system (I believe it may have been in an aircraft) that had a number of control computers working side by side, with a majority needed for an action to be taken. For added failsafeness, each system was developed and tested by a different team, with different methods, practices and technology.

Later on, during maintenance of these systems, it turned out that most of the systems contained the same bugs and the same problems, purely as a result of the way the developers worked, thought and how they'd learnt to program. This was from years back, but it would be fairly naive to think that this type of thing doen't happen any more - the state of the art may have changed, but programmers are still human.

Heh, and now my sig seems somewhat less useful...

Re:new use of old trick

[IdolizingStewie]

You got lucky. The same thing happened to a friend of mine - not identical code, but close enough. Unfortunately that teacher was a douche and sent them to the Honor Council, complaining the whole time about the trouble it was causing him. The Honor Council met 3 months later when school was back in session and cleared the students in the shortest deliberation on record. I can only assume they actually took into consideration that the students didn't know each other and the teacher is one of those OCD there is only one correct method types, so obviously both students did it the same way - the way he taught it.

Re:new use of old trick

[Azarael]

Exactly true, and in most cases the effort needed to cover you tracks well is equivalent to doing the assignment anyway.. thus the laziness factor.

Re:new use of old trick

[runderwo]

They should have simply sat both of you down and given you a pop quiz to rewrite the same assignment in pseudocode, without referring to the work you turned in, and with instructions to reproduce your submission as closely as possible. It will become clear from the results of that exercise whether or not one of the individuals copied the work. Not necessarily because they wouldn't be able to remember the variable names and such, but mostly because someone who cheated on the assignment would have no idea how to reimplement the algorithms under pressure.

If both people pass this exercise, then it doesn't really matter if somebody cheated because they're both clearly capable of performing the task. And that's what matters in the end as far as the professor's responsibility goes, that they don't pass someone through the course who in the end is lacking capability and will tarnish the reputation of the school.

Re:new use of old trick

[sabt-pestnu]

As if there weren't enough reasons to comment your code, this would be added to the list.

If nothing else, they prove you know what the heck your code is doing, and why it is doing it. Which is half of what the exercise is about anyway. (The other half being "can you come up with it yourself".)

Re:new use of old trick

[p3d0]

You must be a student if you measure code in pages. :-)

Re:new use of old trick

[Just Some Guy]

I think that was implicit in the term "homework". :-)

Besides, I didn't say what millennium this happened it.

Re:new use of old trick

[kcbanner]

It is a good test, however...is it fair to subject said students to this every time you suspect something though?

Re:new use of old trick

[nschubach]

Hell, I had a teacher explain the entire first assignment on the board in class, then asked us to do it for the first lab. He pulled me and my roommate into a meeting with a committee to question why we copied each other. We both looked at the teacher and the committee and said: "You put the entire lab program on the board, how do you expect us not to use it?" ...and they let us go.

Re:new use of old trick

[darkonc]

We're talking about 20 lines of assembly -- probably the equivalent of 5-10 lines of C. There's not a whole lot of room for divergence in 20 lines of assembly. Even 20 lines of C would have been a good bit more surprising.
Assembly is a reasonably regimented language, and in that kind of space, the only difference would be variable names and jump labels -- and, considering that this code was probably already surrounded by variable name protocols, theres' not going to be that much room to diverge there, either.

It's still an interesting story -- but far from shocking.

No, really

[Plunky]

lets just set the code free. lets not chase it down the street to make sure it stays free, just let it go as it will.

Re:No, really

[Reziac]

That was akin to my first thought: If opensource code is really so superior to closed source code, and if the world would be better off if all apps had been built from those codebases, then shouldn't we *encourage* it to be "pirated", for everyone's net benefit??

Re:No, really

[The Bungi]

That won't do. The GPL is really more of a social instrument than a software license, so for people like Stallman a BSD-style license (which is just one step above public domain and true freedom) would be unacceptable. A lot of bandwidth and keyboard lubricant has been spent over the years to ensure that everyone thinks the GPL is the "best" software license - and the thousands of developers that buy into the FSF "freedom, with caveats" spiel by using the GPL (because well, that's what everyone uses) without really understanding what it's for are part of that problem.

As you can imagine I really don't like the GPL or the FSF or Richard Stallman or any of his friends too much. While I recognize their contributions I think that they've fallen into the trap of trying to force everyone to convert to what has become a quasi-religion where the Inquisition is more important than celebrating mass.

Re:No, really

[Anonymous Coward]

keyboard lubricant

I've never heard it called that before.

Re:No, really

[Anonymous Coward]

You can use the BSD license for your code if you unconditionally believe that "more copies of good code = better world". Heck, in many countries you can put code directly in the public domain. For those who think that authors of good (open) code need to be able to get an advantage in return for their generosity, so that they can keep being generous and produce more good code, there's the GPL, and that needs some level of enforcement.

Re:No, really

[Ian Alexander]

That was akin to my first thought: If opensource code is really so superior to closed source code, and if the world would be better off if all apps had been built from those codebases, then shouldn't we *encourage* it to be "pirated", for everyone's net benefit??

One of the strengths of open source is that improvements are shared. If one company just makes some improvements to an open source project and then redistributes it in a way that violates the terms of the license designed to keep it open, that only completely undermines that strength. Open source code isn't necessarily superior. It's the development model of open source.

Either way, it's a pretty shitty thing for a company to do. Just follow the damn license. It isn't hard.

Re:No, really

[jez9999]

Making the code freer than the GPL lets eg. Microsoft's embrace, extend, extinguish a whole lot easier. Now they just have to copy/paste and slightly modify the code, compile it, and pass it off as theirs. Some of us don't like that.

Re:No, really

[DamonHD]

Yes, I too think that the GPL rates RMS' political agenda higher than my creative contribution, so I prefer BSD licensing.

It's not like RMS is paying me, so why should my work be used to support his aims above mine?

Rgds

Damon

Re:No, really

[marcello_dl]

The code doesn't need freedom. People need freedom. Let the bad guys incorporate GPLed stuff and they are likely to become an issue because they'll enhance it and defend it as it were all their own, against similar enhancements done to the GPLed branch.

Besides, If i were to buy software from a company I'd like to know if it's stuff they designed and know line by line or if they just rebranded things i could obtain for free elsewhere.

I say, if you can expose them, do it.

Re:No, really

[TheRaven64]

For Open Source code, you are right. The Open Source movement believes in the superiority of the 'bazaar' development mode. If you try to create a closed fork then you are going to fall behind the open version, and have to spend a lot of time and effort merging changes from the main tree.

The Free Software movement, however, believes that code which protects the user's freedoms to use, modify and distribute it is intrinsically superior, and that people who wish to write code that does not respect these freedoms should not be aided by being able to use the work of those who do.

As such, an Open Source advocate would not mind, because the closed copy would quickly become inferior. A Free Software advocate would object, because their work would be being used for (in their view) unethical purposes (denying end users their freedoms).

Re:No, really

[The Bungi]

I consider BSD to be a superior server environment to Linux, and so far it's doing quite well.

Re:No, really

[Daishiman]

You know, I'm absolutely tired of the BSD trolls that claim that the BSD license is "freer", not because I have a beef with the BSD, simply because your definition of "freedom" is ludicrous.

There are no absolute freedoms. Freedom to infringe on other's rights or freedoms gives more freedom to yourself, but limits it to other members of society. So long as there are things that cannot be owned or achieved communaly without side effects to others, freedoms have a limit, that is the actions that you cannot do so that others can do them.

The GPL definition of freedom is that a sofware and derivatives must always, under all conditions, be free. Yes, it a restriction to the developer who would wish to close up his source and use a GPLed piece of code, but it is an additional freedom to all the users who now have access to this source, which would have otherwise been denied.

Analogy time: the King is free to treat his peasants as dogs if he wished and if he has sufficient power to repress any opinions the peasants would have about that. The peasants, however, are limited by the freedoms the king has. Therefore the balance of freedoms for a more equal society would be that the king's freedoms be limited in order to allow the peasants to live their life.

So as you said, the GPL is also a social instrument, but it is no less free than the BSD; it simply distributes freedoms in a different matter. If you have a problem with that, use whichever license you wish to use. But don't go around accusing the GPL is limiting freedoms when it gives others freedoms that the BSD could never guarantee.

Re:No, really

[Kjella]

Oh I think everybody understands it just fine because it's basicly "Modify it any way you want. If you distribute it, source code goes with it". Ok so it's not free as in public domain, but who really has a problem with the GPL? Only those that want to take source code and not distribute source code. Which is fine, I'd love it if someone did my work so I could download it off the Internet too. I just don't see why anyone should bother to listen to them, no matter how many strawmen are being used about "real" freedom. The freedoms you don't get are the difference between free software and free labor.

Re:No, really

[Locklin]

There is a major pragmatic purpose to the GPL for the developer. Any new developments by any party are conveyed back to the original author. Thats why people like Linus love to use it.

People that complain about the GPL are almost always parties interested in taking working code from the original author, and using/improving on it, without giving anything back. Why should we care if you want to freeload on someone else's work?

Re:No, really

[The Bungi]

You know, I'm absolutely tired of the BSD trolls

If by that you mean "you have a different definition of what freedom is, therefore I don't like you" then sure, I'm a "BSD troll" or whatever.

your definition of "freedom" is ludicrous.

GPL -> Distribution restrictions.
BSD -> No restrictions.
No restrictions -> More freedom.
More freedom -> Possible unsavory side effects that people choose to live with

Isn't logic great?

The GPL definition of freedom is that a sofware and derivatives must always, under all conditions, be free.

BSD has a similar one, except that it doesn't place restrictions on how that happens. No one can make BSD-licensed software "non free", it will always be available to everyone. The only difference is that it might not benefit from coerced third party improvements, but that's what you sign up for.

it simply distributes freedoms in a different matter

The Kool-Aid is strong with this one.

But don't go around accusing the GPL is limiting freedoms when it gives others freedoms that the BSD could never guarantee.

BSD licenses guarantee absolutely nothing. Here's the code, do whatever the heck you want with it. The perceived benefits to using the GPL are nice, but please don't insult people's intelligence by claiming they result in more freedom. A restriction to ensure X or Y is still that - a restriction. The distribution restrictions on the GPL are designed to further Stallman's social causes (some of which I actually agree with). If you feel that's fine, then by all means use the GPL. That's your choice.

Re:No, really

[jack455]

GPL encourages competition. I like BSD but think it's closer to communism than GPL. Maybe I don't even mean that, but BSD folks that say GPL is communistic are really, really stupid. (ie:you)

Re:No, really

[mini me]

You seem to be missing the point of the GPL. The GPL exists to ensure that the end user always has the code available to make changes to the software as he or she sees fit. If the software is released under a BSD-style license, there is no guarantee that the source code will be available for the binary that you are using.

Re:No, really

[Anonymous Coward]

No restrictions -> More freedom.

That doesn't follow in the real world, where we have other restrictions, i.e. copyright law. That allows people to take code and make it proprietary, which they otherwise couldn't. In an environment like that, it causes a net increase of freedom when there is an incentive to make code available under an open source license. Licensing software under the GPL provides that incentive by supplying functionality in return for making derivative works open source.

Re:No, really

[DaleGlass]

The GPL vs BSD "freedom" argument is really boring semantics. Whether the GPL is freedom, slavery, communism or whatever else you want to call it is irrelevant to me: It does precisely what I want, which is why I use it.

Re:No, really

[Daishiman]

GPL -> Distribution restrictions. BSD -> No restrictions. No restrictions -> More freedom. More freedom -> Possible unsavory side effects that people choose to live with

GPL -> Code will always be open and derivatives will stay that way
BSD -> Code can be closed off and new improvements to it can remain closed off forever.
Always open code -> More freedom
Sometimes open code -> Permanent loss of freedom with regards to that code.
Indeed, logic is great.

BSD has a similar one, except that it doesn't place restrictions on how that happens. No one can make BSD-licensed software "non free", it will always be available to everyone. The only difference is that it might not benefit from coerced third party improvements, but that's what you sign up for.

I never said that you can't sign up for that if so you wish, but code is always used within contexts, and when used in the context of proprietary software, any improvements on the code will be lost, any bug fixes will be lost, any added functionality will be lost.

Sure, some people will build upon it, but losing the obligation of putting the improvements back into the codebase means that it will eventually stagnate, and that the improvements that could have been used for the good of everyone who contributed can be denied at will. Look at FreeBSD with OS X: Apple got the foundation of their OS for free, and after that they simply closed up the rest at will. Perhaps the Apple folks got to improve their memory management, or add some new DRM techniques. Whatever they've done, the FreeBSD devs will never get to see it.

If they don't mind as users and developers to see their work used to create a proprietary, vendor-locked platform then it's their prerogative; as a used and dev I prefer to make sure that my code is an established base of constant improvement. With the GPL they're empowered and free to do that; with BSD new parties are empowered to do whatever and completely ignore original creators aside from the required attributions.

Notice that I'm not saying the BSD license is more free; it is equally free, but shifting freedom to new developers and vendors to be,IMO, lazy bastards and profiting for nothing, while GPL shifts it to original developers, contributors and users to get reciprocal treatment from others. You're free to think that the former is more important; I belive the latter brings greater benefits to everyone in the long term.

BSD has a similar one, except that it doesn't place restrictions on how that happens. No one can make BSD-licensed software "non free", it will always be available to everyone. The only difference is that it might not benefit from coerced third party improvements, but that's what you sign up for.

No one is coercing anyone here. If you had read and understoof the GPL, and it looks like you haven't, you'd know that the conditions apply only to those who want to redistribute software. If you want to keep your patches to yourself you can do that and it's your right, but if you're going to be using other's code to sell it or gain from it you have to abide by the creator's conditions. Going back to my point about freedom, perhaps as distributor you have less leeway regarding your changes, but your users have just gained the guarantee that they'll always be able to see and change the code. The BSD could not have done that.

BSD licenses guarantee absolutely nothing. Here's the code, do whatever the heck you want with it. The perceived benefits to using the GPL are nice, but please don't insult people's intelligence by claiming they result in more freedom. A restriction to ensure X or Y is still that - a restriction. The distribution restrictions on the GPL are designed to further Stallman's social causes (some of which I actually agree with). If you feel that's fine, then by all means use the GPL. That's your choice.

You hit the nail on the head. Th

Re:No, really

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

People that complain about the GPL are almost always parties interested in taking working code from the original author, and using/improving on it, without giving anything back. Why should we care if you want to freeload on someone else's work?

Admittedly they're usually not as vocal, but theres plenty of people who prefer the BSD idea of freedom-- Otherwise there would be no BSD licensed code.

I don't dislike the GPL. but it definitely complicates things. A lot of times when working on something I just want to work on the part that is new or innovative, and use some pre-existing software as a 'base assumption'. I.E if I want to write some special backup software, I want to work on the logic of backing up, working off the assumption that I have a working FTP server on the other end rather than having to write one from scratch. Things like the loosely worded "linking clause" makes this really hard to do with GPL'd middleware (libraries, parsers, example code).

Not everyone that complains about GPL'd software just wants to rename gaim and sell it for $20. Some of us just don't want to reinvent the wheel every time we work on something new, but can't always afford to GPL everything that had some interaction with the GPL'd base.

Re:No, really

[vranash]

This...
My Land...
You Land...

Copyrighted, so it's not our 'land' :)

Re:No, really

[fsmunoz]

The GPL is really more of a social instrument than a software license

I agree with you here.

so for people like Stallman a BSD-style license (which is just one step above public domain and true freedom) would be unacceptable.

Here I disagree: it's not unaceptable at all, only less prefered. It's a free license, but lacks the "social instrument" provisions that you mentioned, but it *is* a free license nonetheless. From the FSF licences page:

If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the FSF by writing to . The proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you find an existing free software license that meets your needs. We try to list the most commonly encountered free software license on this page, but cannot list them all; we'll try our best to answer questions about free software licenses whether or not they are listed here.

Modified BSD license

This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is risky to recommend use of "the BSD license", because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.
This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.

From the What is Free Software page:

In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But non-copylefted free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your program is non-copylefted free software, we can still use it.

... and from the page concerning the BSD advertising clause problem:

We recommend copyleft, because it protects freedom for all users,but non-copylefted software can still be free software, and useful to the free software community.

Of course, the FSF prefers and recommends the GPL: it's their license, made with a specific purpose. But I just don't see the confrontantional tone that would make the BSD/X11/ISC-type licenses "unacceptable".

As for the rest, you are of couse more than free to like or dislike RMS, the FSF or the GPL, I'm not trying to change that.

Re:No, really

[fsmunoz]

BSD -> No restrictions.

There are restrictions, using the BSD license in the OSI page:

# Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
# Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. So some people might feel that their liberty is diminuished by having to retain copyright notices and putting disclaimers in their stuff. If absolute "freedom" - actually the ability to use something without any kind of restrition whatsoever - is paramount why doesn't the BSD community (whose contribution to free software is important) put their code in the Public Domain?

The rest of the GPL vs BSD license discussion has been done to death, just wanted to point out that restrictions exist in most free software licenses, it's the specific restrictions that make people prefer one or the other.

Re:No, really

[Raenex]

Access to source code != freedom. It is a convenience.

Copyright denies freedom, and it is debatable whether this is ultimately justified, but you don't hear people claiming that the benefits of copyright enable "freedoms" of copyright holders. Yet that's the same kind of nonsense that the FSF wants everybody else to swallow.

Re:No, really

[slashdotlurker]

I do not think that there is any argument that BSD is more free than GPL.
The issue is whether the freedom they respectively provide is sustainable - GPL is, BSD often isn't as modifications do not necessarily come back to enhance the initial product.
Rough analogy : Is a modern constitutional republic less free than a society with no rules, where people may do exactly as they please, with no restrictions ? Most definitely yes. Is the modern constitutional republic more likely to survive than the chaotic society described above ? On balance of evidence, yes.
Once again, the same theme appears to emerge. The kind of freedom that BSD provides is not sustainable as proven by the anaemic performance of FreeBSD, PCBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD (the last one is almost dead) compared to Linux.
So, the issue is not what is more technically free, the issue is - is that freedom going to grow and last ?

Re:No, really

[The One and Only]

And my problem with the GPL trolls is their belief that inanimate software deserves freedom more than developers do. Look, GPL offers a fair bargain: I'll show you mine if you show me yours. BSD fulfills its purpose too: an unconditional donation of code to the world. The real freedom is that we have a choice between the two, and to make our own license if we want to.

Re:No, really

[Blakey Rat]

What bothers me is that all of this discussion, all these constant debates on Slashdot over which license says what, all of the millions of comments on the GPLv3... that all represents time *not spent writing actual code*.

Re:No, really

[Anonymous Coward]

>...but who really has a problem with the GPL? Only those that want to take source code and not distribute source code...

...and those of us who are tired of jackasses like you and RMS braying about how it's the only licence worth having and calling those who don't agree thieves (like you just did in the above quote).

Seriously, you guys come across worse than Jehovah's Witnesses. We don't agree with your childish principles and want nothing to do with you or your code; we are quite capable of writing our own, thank you. STFU and and leave us alone.

Re:No, really

[radarsat1]

The GPL is really more of a social instrument than a software license

In what way is any license not a social instrument?

Re:No, really

[Jonner]

I'm pretty sure that most of the people at the FSF would share your skepticism of the value of copyright. The whole point of copyleft is to use the existing legal system to promote the FSF's ideals. If there weren't copyright, the GPL would carry no weight and wouldn't be needed in the first place, a situation that RMS would have undoubtedly preferred.

Re:No, really

[Raenex]

If there weren't copyright, the GPL would carry no weight and wouldn't be needed in the first place, a situation that RMS would have undoubtedly preferred. You're ignoring the main point of contention here: FSF considers access to source code one of the fundamental "freedoms" and "rights" of users. That aspect can only be enforced with copyright and the GPL. Alternatively, if there was no copyright, the FSF would require a law mandating something like the GPL, which in my view would be decidedly anti-freedom.

I full agree with the FSF that being able to copy, use, and modify is an aspect of freedom. But being entitled to source is not.

Re:No, really

[bky1701]

While they may claim that, I think the source code part is more about functionality. Since we lack the same development abilities as companies like Microsoft, the best way to develop is the open method; it avoids "dead ends" when a project dies, helps find errors and generate fixes to them, allows more people to help than would normally be 'allowed', allows code reuse and gives free software another selling point (you can change it easily to do whatever you want).

It's more about competition than ideals as far as I (a GPL software developer) care. The fact that it's open is nice, for all of those reasons, but I don't want to keep copyright around just to preserve them; it has many more downsides for everyone.

Re:No, really

[MikeBabcock]

More power to you. I believe that's the MIT or BSD license you're looking for.

This is about GPL violations, which is as much about guaranteeing the future freedom of the code as it is the freedom to tinker with the code in the first place.

If you don't like it, that's fine, use something else.

Re:No, really

[Nazlfrag]

If someone wants to invest time and effort into a closed fork, good on them. Everyone else still has access to the original branch, and the creator of the fork isn't messing with any of those rights. I don't see any imbalance, the authors are not falling victim to anything as their original works are intact. The closed branch people are worse off - they aren't benefiting from the open model anymore. It's their loss, their mistake to make if they want to. The inherit superiority of open source makes GPL restrictions unnecessary and, well, too restrictive.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their view, which is why we should have a multitude of licenses. The GPL for those who want to protect the open nature of derivatives, others who care little about derivatives and focus on the work at hand. I guess I'm just trying to say that it should be up to the author of a work whether they wish to receive the same benefits back and the term Open Source shouldn't be a narrow subset, such as GPL compatible licenses only.

Re:No, really

[tkinnun0]

There are no absolute freedoms. Sure there are, if you just define them. For example: Actor A has an absolute freedom to do action X wrt. actor B iff doing action X and not doing action X result in actor B receiving the same information.

Re:No, really

[Plunky]

There is a major pragmatic purpose to the GPL for the developer. Any new developments by any party are conveyed back to the original author. Thats why people like Linus love to use it.

This is not strictly true. If Boris forks Alices project, he is under no obligation to convey anything back to her. He is required to distribute source to the users of his fork, but that doesn't mean that Alice gets much benefit. The users are not obligated to publish the source, and even if one does, Boris might like a different code style and apply a prettyprinter to the code, such that patches are not easily made. Whatever.

Re:No, really

[WNight]

No, you aren't capable. You'd be doing it and releasing it under the BSDL if you could. You can't. Can NOT.

That's why you're pissed. GPL advocates are writing software you can't re-use without re-releasing.

If it wasn't that you wouldn't be bitching about licenses on Slashdot, you'd be using your obviously superior code. So go do it. Your problem is obviously that you can't have everything you want.

Re:No, really

[WNight]

Why not use the GPLed code until you're ready to replace it? GPL code is free to use for development so you can just hack stuff together quickly.

Why not write your app as a stand-alone and not contain an FTP server at all. Regardless of what you've heard, shelling out and using another program isn't a derivative work.

If you write complex proprietary software you're reducing the freedom of users who get stuck using it. (Printer drivers, etc). Freedom for the users (other developers) overrides the freedom of the one person who'd choose to stick them without source code.

Consider a system based on BSD code for networking (Windows) and how free the users are. How enriched they are by the free exchange of ideas and source code in this product... Sure, basic networking is BSDLed to get everyone, even jerks, to use it. But we can see what these freedoms that BSDL is claimed to offer really get you. Proprietary lock-in and EULAs and code patents. For everyone.

We (Non BSDL supporters) get your point. The BSDL is requires less so it's more free. Most people however would agree that by surrendering a couple of rights (to shoot guns wildly in the air) we gain a safer society for all. You're slightly less free by having to find a safe place to fire your gun, I'm more free because I can walk down the streets without worrying about falling bullets. As a society, we're much freer. The restriction is balanced by you not needing for fear anyone else's falling bullets. In a similar way the GPL requires slightly more, but it actually takes steps to make the future nicer for everyone.

Why not just release your work into the public domain if you want no restrictions?

Re:No, really

[trifish]

it is no less free than the BSD

GPL certainly is less free than BSD.

Need an example? If I create software under the GPL I cannot take any code under other open source licenses (MPL, BSD, Apache, etc.) and integrate it as part of my GPLed program. Why? Because the GPL requires that all parts of my software are released under the GPL! See?

The other licenses allow me to combine open source code covered by different licenses in one single product. That's why they give us more freedom than the GPL.

Re:No, really

[LordVader717]

Now you're using a different situation as an example.

The point is that there is no universally acknowledged "absolute freedom, guaranteed" and opinions are always subject to bias.
You, for example, have had a run-in with the restrictions of the GPL and so you have an impression of the GPL restricting your freedom.

Then there are other people who have been frustrated about not being able to change some piece of software, because some of the source is available and some isn't. Now they feel burnt. Maybe they even contributed some of the code originally.

Re:No, really

[trifish]

Let's try a different approach, so that everyone understands:

Simply, if we remove from the GPL the requirement that the whole program must be under the GPL, and if we add a new requirement that other licenses covering other parts of the program must require complete source code to be open, will we have more freedom? Yes, we definitely and obviously will.

The "if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are-against-us" attitude reminds me of the communists. The GPL insists that it should be the only license in the world...

Re:No, really

[Daishiman]

Uhh, no. If you were a bit more aware of the subject, you would know that there are "GPL-compatible" licenses, where you can link code between them and the clauses of each license permit so without trouble.

I'm actually quite suprised how little most people know on the subject. If you want a license that frees your code while letting others link proprietary code to it, you have the LGPL, which allows just that, and is IMO the best license for core libraries such as GTK a libc.

Sounds to me like you people should take a look at the LGPL. The FSF and Stallman realized that some of the freedoms of the GPL might translate into unreasonable restrictions to others, and that's why they created that license.

Re:No, really

[trifish]

Uhh, no. If you were a bit more aware of the subject, you would know that there are "GPL-compatible" licenses Uh, no. The GPL explicitly requires the entire program to be covered by the GPL. So there is simply no license "compatible with GPL" in this regard (apart perhaps from the LGPL, which I find almost ironical).

where you can link code between them and the clauses of each license permit so without trouble. Yes, all open source licenses allow you to do that, except the GPL.

I'm actually quite suprised how little most people know on the subject. You're right, and, no offence, but you are a good example of that.

If you want a license that frees your code while letting others link proprietary code to it, you have the LGPL, which allows just that, and is IMO the best license for core libraries such as GTK a libc.

Sounds to me like you people should take a look at the LGPL. The FSF and Stallman realized that some of the freedoms of the GPL might translate into unreasonable restrictions to others, and that's why they created that license. Nobody has talked about LGPL. We (including the grand parent poster) have talked about the GPL. So please try to stay on-topic. The topic was GPL vs. BSD.

Re:No, really

[kaffiene]

You failed to answer any of the points raised by the poster you responded to. His post was well thought out, unlike your reply. How about answer the points raised than making cute quips like "The Kool-Aid is strong with this one".

There are plenty of people who ARE in the GPL camp, philosophically, so attempting to waive them off with glib comments is simply not good enough. If you can't be assed to do anything more than make glib comments, then the "BSD Troll" label is probably appropriate.

Re:No, really

[Peaker]

Need an example? If I create software under the GPL I cannot take any code under other open source licenses (MPL, BSD, Apache, etc.) and integrate it as part of my GPLed program. Why? Because the GPL requires that all parts of my software are released under the GPL! See?

Sure you can. The GPL applies to those who don't have the right to distribute the software in the first place. You have the copyright to your own work, so the GPL limitations only apply to whoever you, as the copyright holder, want them to apply, and not to yourself.

The other licenses allow me to combine open source code covered by different licenses in one single product. That's why they give us more freedom than the GPL.

As others said already, there is a trade-off between developer "freedom" (to lock users away from using the software [this is more of a "power" than a "freedom"], or to combine software in certain ways) and user freedom. BSD places more freedom and power in the hands of developers, which necessarily means less freedom to the software users.

Since there are probably far more users of software than developers, I'd say that the net freedom is actually larger with the GPL.

Re:No, really

[Peaker]

I full agree with the FSF that being able to copy, use, and modify is an aspect of freedom. But being entitled to source is not.

How can you practice the freedom to modify a program without the source?

Re:No, really

[Raenex]

How can you practice the freedom to modify a program without the source? Freedom would entail being free to modify whatever you receive. It does not entail being entitled to receiving the source. That would be a matter of convenience, not freedom.

Re:No, really

[Draek]

to be honest, until a few minutes ago I could've sworn that the GPL had a clause that said derivative works of a program distributed under the GPL must only retain the same freedoms granted by it, not specifically the GPL itself, but after a quick Google search I discovered that it *does* require it to be under the GPL and GPL only, and that it has been so since v1.

of course, I'd rather blame that on stupidity and short-sightedness of the FSF than on any malice or "us vs them" mentality, so I'm hoping that it'll be fixed by v4 and before 2020 or something...

Re:No, really

[be-fan]

If you think Stallman has made this into a religious thing, you really don't have a very good understanding of the history of the GPL.

I'm not going to claim to have a deep insight into Stallman's mind, but based on historical events in the public record, I think it's fair to say that the GPL has an extremely practical intention behind it.

Stallman is a product of the computer industry of the 1980s. This was when "open" in the commercial software industry meant nothing similar to what it does now, and when lot's of "open" code (BSD, UNIX, etc) got locked up by companies. Taking the historical context into account, it's absolutely obvious where the "share and share alike" aspect of the GPL comes from.

Incidentally, as someone who has at least a bit of code under the GPL, I resent the insinuation that I've somehow been duped by fancy advertising. If you don't like the GPL --- fine, use the BSD license for _your_ open source code. Meanwhile, there are lots of people, perhaps less magnanimous than yourself, who like the idea of a common pool of open code that is actively protected by a license with some teeth.

Re:No, really

[be-fan]

MS has 70,000 employees, most of which are mediocre. In fact, that's almost the essence of their development model --- throw thousands of crappy developers at a problem and excrete a solution that is just workable enough to make some money.

Re:No, really

[Peaker]

Having no source means not having the freedom to modify, in practice.

Its an important freedom, not a convenience.

Re:No, really

[jonbryce]

A university/college assignment is supposed to allow the student to demonstrate their ability to write good code, not copy someone else's code.

Secondly, while open source permits copying, it generally doesn't allow you to claim that you wrote it, even for the most permissive licences such as the BSD style licences.

Re:No, really

[trifish]

Sure you can.

Sure I can't. I can license only MY code, which is under the GPL. If I want to use others' code released under other licenses and use the code in MY code I can't do that. The GPL doesn't allow it.

which necessarily means less freedom to the software users.

Nonsense. More freedom for developers translates to more rapid development, ability to not re-invent the wheel, ability to co-operate and share code with other projects, which is always good for the userbase.

The only lock-in I see is the GPL.

Re:No, really

[Raenex]

Having no source means not having the freedom to modify, in practice. There's a huge difference between being allowed to do something and being entitled to services that help you accomplish your goals. You have the freedom to do all kinds of things that practically you cannot. Obligating that others must help you detracts from their freedoms.

If I wanted to sell you some appliance, but I lost the manual, am I forbidden from selling you the appliance? If I invented my own appliance and sold it to you, am I obligated to tell you exactly how it works? If I wrote my code in assembler, and you don't understand assembler, am I obligated to write it in your favorite language?

Freedom entails being allowed to hack, reverse engineer, and redistribute what you have received. It does not place obligations on others. Such fundamental principles shouldn't be subverted just because Stallman thinks he is entitled to the source for a printer driver.

Re:No, really

[trifish]

to be honest, until a few minutes ago I could've sworn that the GPL had a clause that said derivative works of a program distributed under the GPL must only retain the same freedoms granted by it, not specifically the GPL itself, but after a quick Google search I discovered that it *does* require it to be under the GPL and GPL only, and that it has been so since v1.

of course, I'd rather blame that on stupidity and short-sightedness of the FSF than on any malice or "us vs them" mentality, so I'm hoping that it'll be fixed by v4 and before 2020 or something... Thank you for your honesty. Really. I'm glad I helped open at least one pair of eyes in this regard. Most people believe that GPL is the greatest license, while it is sadly one of the worst.

Re:No, really

[trifish]

And once again for you:

Simply, if we remove from the GPL the requirement that the whole program must be under the GPL, and if we add a new requirement that other licenses covering other parts of the program must require complete source code to be open, will we have more freedom? Yes, we definitely and obviously will.

Re:No, really

[Random832]

How can you practice the freedom to modify a program without the source? With a hex editor.

Duh.

Re:No, really

[Peaker]

Sure I can't. I can license only MY code, which is under the GPL. If I want to use others' code released under other licenses and use the code in MY code I can't do that. The GPL doesn't allow it.

If you license your code GPL, you are allowed to violate the GPL when distributing it - its your copyright. Thus, you are allowed to license part of your program GPL, and part of it BSD, and have part of it even completely closed! Its your copyright.

This is, by the way, how nvidia binary kernel drivers work. They are not GPL, but linked against GPL. They simply wrote a GPL adapter for the kernel interface (it links with the kernel so it has to be GPL) and distributed their own code under a closed license and linked it with their GPL'd adapter.

Re:No, really

[Peaker]

When does a restriction cross the line from being an inconvinience to actually preventing freedom?

If the government barricades your house so you can't leave, is that against your freedom of movement? Its not really disallowing you - you just can't.

How about if it just puts some very hard to cross obstacles? Perhaps a long fence that you can cross with great effort?

There is no real difference between practical difficulty/impossibility and lack of freedom.

Re:No, really

[Raenex]

If the government barricades your house so you can't leave, is that against your freedom of movement? Its not really disallowing you - you just can't. You're talking about somebody actively thwarting a liberty you previously possesed, but trying to pass it off as something else. It's like the kid who puts his finger his finger in his sister's face and claims "I"m not touching you! I'm not touching you!".

I'm talking about somebody who gave you something that you accepted of your own free will, and then you demand that they give you more.

There is no real difference between practical difficulty/impossibility and lack of freedom. Don't you see what you've done? You have accepted a position that rests on a lie used for marketing. Now you have to defend a position that makes no sense.

Re:No, really

[trifish]

If you license your code GPL, you are allowed to violate the GPL when distributing it - its your copyright.

I see what you mean. I can't violate my own copyright. That's right. However, note that you can't claim that your software is distributed under the GPL (as published by the GNU) and that the license applies and is in full force and effect.

What you would release is a copyright-protected work that is NOT covered by the GPL.

Re:No, really

[Jonner]

Yeah, that's an interesting point. I honestly have no idea what RMS would have done if software weren't copyrightable but source usually wasn't provided with binaries. I suspect that if software weren't copyrightable, most authors wouldn't be opposed to making source available as well as binaries, but that would be a very different world from the one we're living in. I agree with RMS and the FSF to the extent that I think most software should be Free, but I can't agree that it's morally wrong to write proprietary software.

Re:No, really

[ZorbaTHut]

The BSD licenses do not guarantee that the freedoms you have with said code will be preserved.

Yeah it does.

If there's a chunk of code that's BSD-licensed, you will always be able to use it, in any manner you want, without exception. That's guaranteed, forever.

It doesn't guarantee that other bits of code added to it will be free as well. It doesn't guarantee that a complete rewrite of that code will be free. But that particular code is always, always, always free - with both BSD and GPL.

Emacs tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know? All modern PCs ship with a special Symbolics Lisp co-processor to support the Emacs text editor. Vi users often refer to this $79 chip the "Emacs Tax".

Re:Emacs tax

[zeromorph]

Congratulations, in something that is going to be a GPL vs. BSD flamewar you are starting a vi vs. Emacs flamewar.

I'm really touched.

Re:Emacs tax

[jack455]

vi was great until I managed to install wine. Now I can use notepad.exe

plug-in a mouse already

Re:Emacs tax

[Epistax]

psssst.... you can use a mouse with vi..

Re:Emacs tax

[hawk]

I, for one, welcome our new vi/bsd overlords, who will defend us from the beowolf of soviet russian gpl/high-church-of-emacs heretics . . .

hawk

Re:Emacs tax

[jack455]

vi? or vim?

(If I have to edit a text file for some reason when no x server is running, I start one and kwrite or gedit, save, and log back out. That's efficient! Otherwise I actually have one of those Oreilly pocket books on vi If I really have to use it)

Re:Emacs tax

[Epistax]

Woah, back up. What was my comment in reply to? The suggestion that VI had no mouse. Sure it does, if X is running. Sure emacs has a mouse... if X is running.

Woah dude woah. Like. woah.

Re:Emacs tax

[jack455]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, let me explain...

vi? or vim?

(If I have to edit a text file for some reason when no x server is running, I start one and kwrite or gedit, save, and log back out. That's efficient! Otherwise I actually have one of those Oreilly pocket books on vi If I really have to use it) I was actually suggesting that vi might not have mouse support unless you were using the "improved" vi; vim. Then the next part was to show that I'm very inexperienced and don't know a lot because I jump through crazy hoops to edit text files, including going so far as to start up x instead of learning to use vi (or emacs) effectively. It was self-deprecating, attempting to clarify that I was being sarcastic in the original post.

I wasn't implying that you thought you could have a mouse without x running. In any case vim is obviously vi.

A couple of things....

[mark-t]

What is the false positive rate for this method? What if two programs just happen to do the same thing and the authors happened to choose similar ways to do it. Would this method conclude that one originated with the other? It's not a copyright violation because neither is a derivative work of the other.

Also, it occurs to me that this method would probably not be as useful as expected for detecting GPL violations. It would think it would only be effective for checking where you have source code available, or at the very least enough symbol table information to make comparisons, which you are not likely to have if somebody is violating the GPL because that implies no source code anyways (and almost certainly no symbol table information for the binary).

Re:A couple of things....

[IamTheRealMike]

More to the point what is the false negative rate? There is tons of really useful code out there that doesn't make any system or library calls at all. It just takes data, processes it in some way, and hands back the results. That description could apply to something like an image decoder library like libpng to a fully blown 3D graphics engine.

Re:A couple of things....

[wizardforce]

probable cause? if two programs execute in virtually identical ways there is a reason to investigate. it doesnt catch them all but it is better than nothing.

Re:A couple of things....

[arth1]

My guess is that it would work much better for java and possibly C++ than more concise languages which don't have tonnes of implicit calls and inheritances. And even with OO languages like java, I'd think that simply adding a try in the middle would change the fingerprint quite a bit.
Also worth considering is what a compiler optimiser might do -- they can be quite good at rearranging code different ways depending on whether optimising for speed or code size, and what the target is. That's probably another reason why this might work better with java, which only has rather rudimentary jit optimiser.

If this tool can help identify some infringing code, that's well and good, but I wouldn't rely on it, wouldn't think it would add much if any legal weight, and neither would I think it could replace a thousand eyes.

Anyhow, the real problem, as I see it, with identifying open source code pilfered and added to a closed source project is that you generally aren't allowed to reverse engineer the code itself to see what it actually does. So even if you're Very Damn Sure that a piece of commercial software illegally uses open source and sells it as its own closed source, you're not allowed to investigate and come up with evidence. You'll have to file a suit and get a judge to order the code examined, and with only a good hunch to go on, and no way to document a financial loss, and probably not having too deep pockets yourself, that's rather unlikely to go anywhere.
Which is why I think it's important that we support institutions like FSF, which can occasionally fight the battle on behalf of the little guy.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:A couple of things....

[mark-t]

Anyhow, the real problem, as I see it, with identifying open source code pilfered and added to a closed source project is that you generally aren't allowed to reverse engineer the code itself to see what it actually does.

The number of cases where this is actually enforceable is far outweighed by the number of cases where it isn't. Reverse engineering by itself isn't illegal anyways... so evidence of copyright infringement acquired by reverse engineering wouldn't be inadmissable.

Re:A couple of things....

[TheRaven64]

There is tons of really useful code out there that doesn't make any system or library calls at all. It just takes data, processes it in some way, and hands back the results Are you sure? You know that read and write are system calls? And that printf, sqrt, exp, etc are all library functions? Even trivial code makes a lot of system calls. A hello world program, in C, on Linux, makes 27 system calls (number from strace).

Re:A couple of things....

[betterunixthanunix]

For a small system, sure -- I am sure that Microsoft's printf implementation performs about the same as GNU's. But for a large system, this way of checking signatures is effective simply because different teams will wind up doing different things to accomplish the same result. Think about WINE -- some games actually run faster under WINE than under Windows, even on the same machine, because of differences in the implementation of the WINE and MS system libraries.

Clean room could replicate signature.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

An identical library call signature for a nontrivial part of the execution could be produced by a clean-room analysis or even independent development of an equivalent component. Neither of these is a GPL violation.

This is not to say that the technique wouldn't be useful for hunting down GPL violations. But a positive is not difinitive by itself.

Meanwhile code obfuscation (even automatically generated obfuscation) could easily modify at least the timing, if not the order, of such calls.

Nevertheless this is a powerful tool: An hunk of GPL code that hasn't had its flow obfuscated systematically (even code that HAS been obfuscated but not systematically) will have large swaths of code that trips the detector. And it doesn't require reverse engineering until after the alarm goes off.

Good job, guys.

Re:Clean room could replicate signature.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Meanwhile code obfuscation (even automatically generated obfuscation) could easily modify at least the timing, if not the order, of such calls.

(Yes I know that the article says it can't. But that refers to the usual sort, which is directed at hiding the similarity from someone reading the source. I'm talking about obfuscation directed at tools reading the routine-call signature.)

Re:Clean room could replicate signature.

[adrianmonk]

This is not to say that the technique wouldn't be useful for hunting down GPL violations. But a positive is not difinitive by itself.

Indeed. The title of this slashdot article would be pretty much dead on if the words "and Prove" were taken out of "New Method to Detect and Prove GPL Violations".

Coming soon...

[koh]

GGA! The GNU Genuine Advantage program!

Re:Coming soon...

[tehBoris]

GGA! The GNU Genuine Advantage program!

GGA Genuine Advantage, you mean.

Sweet Mother of All Revolutions

[fishthegeek]

Pitchfork? ... Check
Torch? ... Check
Map of Corporate Castle locations? ... Check
FSF Lawyers programmed to be speed dialed in emergencies? ... Check
Desire to burn the non-believers? ... Check

Okay, I'm ready! What IRC Channel are we meeting in?

Re:Sweet Mother of All Revolutions

[Assoupis]

Does anyone notice that it is normal to defend something that is put in public domain ? If my code were to be used by some capitalist motherfucks to makes lumps of cash, I would like to know it, and I would like either file a laswuit that would take forever and end up by getting some ludicrous compensation or better, stab the bastard. If you make something free, you make it for the society, not for some corporate interest.

Horray!

[kc2keo]

+10 points for FOSS :-D

Re:And who the fuck might I ask is to spend the ti

[ronadams]

Good thing no one asked you to. GPL code is open-source, so "keeping it out of their grubby little hands" is not an option or even wanted. You had probably better come to understand the purpose of the GPL and what a GPL violation is before you post.

Other languages

[Mike McTernan]

I looked through the paper, and it is cool stuff. But I couldn't see where it supposed the system would work well for other languages, and I wonder if it really would be so good.

Java has a very large standard library that is always dynamically linked, and hence can easily be instrumented as the technique requires. C allows static linking which would make such hooking much more difficult. Additionally Java executes in a very standard environment due to the Virtual Machine, where as other languages may have varying ABIs type sizes and other properties that could add significant noise to the birthmark.

That said, system calls are always hookable and reasonably standard, so maybe this technique could be applied successfully there for malware detection or similar?

Heh..

[mikkelm]

When people go to these lengths to prove misuse of commercial licenses, they're called fascists. When it's done to prove misuse of free licenses, it's OK.

I see the community is still working as it always has.

Re:Heh..

[sepluv]

It may be news to you but non-commercial licenses are AFAIK universally considered non-free (where as you see to imply the two are mutually exclusive). And when has anyone ever had any problem with people going to lengths (whatever that means) to prove license violations?

I've certainly never heard anyone complaining about people coming up with evidence of violations. In fact, what I've come across a lot of is the opposite: asking people who are making vague libelous accusations about someone "stealing" their "IP" (e.g.: The SCO Group) to provide some proof.

(BTW, I know you are probably trolling but I'm bored.)

Re:Heh..

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. How many anti-RIAA stories are posted on /. because they are trying to detect and sue people for copyright violation. But when it's your property that's being stolen, it's good to detect violators and threaten lawsuits.

Re:Heh..

[Tweekster]

Because the people getting the license violated do want to settle for cash? they just want their license to be respected (a license that allows free use compared to a license by music producers that dont offer anything free, ever)

they dont want money, the RIAA does, that is all they want.

Re:So basically

[TheRaven64]

The use case for this is that you release a piece of code, and then find someone else releasing code that does something similar. You run this program on your code and theirs, and there are three likely outcomes:

• They didn't copy your code, and the program tells you this.
• They copied your code, and the program detects it.
• They didn't copy your code, but they did implement it in such a similar way that the program thinks they did.

In the first case, you stop checking. In the second and third, you run additional tests and see if you can find more evidence of a common origin.

Very Cool

[maz2331]

This is very cool and potentially useful. By itself, it wouldn't be enough to force compliance or win a violation suit, it could well be enough to meet the threshold for filing a suit and forcing source code analysis in discovery. Really, it is a great tool to have to ensure that open source license terms are respected by removing the "code anonymity" inherent in a binary.

Back to the same old problem

[kihbord]

It's the same old problem of protecting software. Big companies like M$ have spent billions of dollars trying to control unauthorized use of software. The problem is the same although we are now protecting source code instead of executable code. Does it mean that we are threading the same path and people (developers) will need to spend so much effort and money to protect their rights?

Just great

[Master of Transhuman]

Instead of coding open source projects, now we're coding projects to detect license violations.

Next, the Open Source Business Software Alliance and raids by the Secret Service...

When is the last time we read anything about open source that wasn't about licensing?

When did it stop being about the code and the value?

Re:Just great

[sepluv]

Instead of coding open source projects, now we're coding projects to detect license violations. Well one person has as part of some academic research. You see, the beauty of FLOSS development is everyone can code what they enjoy coding, and that you don't have to help anyone but can instead do something you prefer.

I won't even bother addressing your incoherent comment about the Secret Service, but would be interested in what you are smoking.

When is the last time we read anything about open source that wasn't about licensing? In around 95% of stories about it. For instance the last FLOSS story on here was about a new release of WINE and the one before that about possible moral issues in working with Iranians on a UAV project. You see, the beauty of /. is that when you see licensing in the title of a story, you don't have to comment on the story about how boring licensing is but can instead read or comment on something you are interested in.

Re:Just great

[DerekLyons]

When is the last time we read anything about open source that wasn't about licensing?

In reality, it's pretty much impossible to discuss open source without it being about licensing - because licenses are the legal expression of the open source philosophy. If your are discussing the code, you are discussing the application or the language, not open source.

Re:Just great

[jesterzog]

Instead of coding open source projects, now we're coding projects to detect license violations.

No, we're not. Those guys are developing a method to detect license violations, and despite Slashdot's implications, I can't personally see any reference they've made in their project to GPL, open source or free software.

It's only a net loss for open source projects if they were otherwise going to be working on something more beneficial for open source, and they probably weren't. Usually people who develop open source software work on whatever the hell they feel like, because they're motivated by a variety of things other than seeing free software conquer closed source software.

Re:Just great

[petrus4]

Yep...it ought to be the new motto of the FSF.

"Enjoy the FREEDOM, and don't worry about the cognitive dissonance. It goes away if you don't think about it, eventually."

Re:Just great

[Peaker]

Wow, its hard to believe how many people on Slashdot still think that there is a dissonance with the GPL.

Its been explained well at least 500 times in every such license discussion, but some people are dense enough to still not get it.

BSD->More freedom to software developers (few), less to users (many)
GPL->More freedom to software users (many), less to developers (few)

GPL generates more net freedom.

Its as simple as that.

Re:Just great

[Peaker]

Yeah!

We should have a Slashdot article about the new query_database function in GenericProject 3.2!

Talk about code, baby!

FSF and Stallman have endorsed permissive licenses

[tepples]

The GPL is really more of a social instrument than a software license, so for people like Stallman a BSD-style license (which is just one step above public domain and true freedom) would be unacceptable. Not so fast. The GPL FAQ states that there exist situations where a permissive license is appropriate, in particular short programs and web site templates. Mr. Stallman has also endorsed the use of a permissive license for a library designed as the reference implementation of a Free file format that replaces patented file formats.

Wine?

[buckhead_buddy]

How well does it work with the Wine versus Windows comparison?

Re:i'd say it's time

[maxwell demon]

i actually figured out what the hell GPL is. Interesting. Up to now I only knew about the GNU GPL and the Affero GPL. I guess the hell GPL differs from the GNU GPL that you have not only to give away your source, but also your soul?

Happened to me too

[cybersquid]

I believe you because this happened to me too.

In our case it was perhaps a little more understandable. The other student was a friend and we'd been collaborating on a project. We had adopted common naming conventions, etc.

Our code was virtually identical. I know it sounds unlikely but it does happen.

It's not theft

[jesterzog]

a new method to detect code theft

I realise this is going off on a tangent, but I'm concerned about the use of the word theft. Usually I'm one of the first people to jump up and down when I hear the RIAA or MPAA accuse people of stealing, and I've noticed that quite a few other people on Slashdot do the same. I think it's mis-representative of the paper to represent copyright infringement as anything other than exactly what it is, which is copyright infringement.

Language is what it is, and it changes over time, but I'd be really disappointed if this one was let to slip, because rather than the language changing because it's more convenient or better, it's changing because a group of powerful corporations want to confuse the issue for their own control and commercial benefit.

Re:It's not theft

[jack455]

Stealing something out of the public domain, for instance, is possible. I think Disney's managed it a couple of times.

I'm against putting copyrighted music and movies on bittorrent or p2p, but it's not stealing. I think the consensus is that if just as many people have it after you "stole" it as before, then "stealing" is the wrong term. In this case if Walmart takes oss code, locks it down and releases it and patents it, that could be stealing. If not code theft, then rights theft.

Interesting question though. Probably a lot to think about.

Re:It's not theft

[Tweekster]

well i dont know too many people that download songs then claim them as their own.
When someone snags code, they are now claiming it as their own, that they wrote it etc.

Although i wont claim downloading songs is moral by any means, however, there is a major difference between downloading a song to listen to. and downloading code and incoporating into your own product.

ie downloading something, vs selling it.

Read comments and think MS patent claims on linux.

[3seas]

False positives....

The story is presented with a stage light focused on linux but then the house lights come up and show linux in jail along with most of the audience.

This is just one paper for one Automated Software Engineering (ASE) conference.

But if you really want to insure software becomes genuinely free, then the level or automated software development will have to become easy enough for the typical user to apply it. Much like most anyone knows how to use a calculator and uses it as they need.

There is currently some effort being applied in the ASE overall focus that will become unimportant and not used once such a user level is reached, not to mention the changes on hardware that enables users to take their system with them on a key chain. Though there will be servers, the majority of use of such automated software creation at such a level will be at the users level, be they a system developer or a casual end user.

And like a calculator calculations sequence...uh err... finger print.... this finger printing becomes pointless.
as it will be found to be something of a reflection of the underlying knowledge system, and not so unique of the users.

To get to the basics of automation and realize the commonality of it is to then know the GPL advantage is NOT having "its mine and you cannot use, overhead and land mines"

For some automation basics - http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

"a new method to detect code theft "

[noidentity]

Code theft is trivial to detect: just see if your code is missing. Please, can't even Slashdot get the terms consistently correct? This is not about theft at all; it's about a tool that helps find copyright infringement.

Re:Linus is right

[jack455]

??

Linux is still GPL'ed as far as I know. If Linus doesn't want to enforce the GPL (Linux Foundation really) then he (they) could release it under a BSD license.

And I read what he says on GPLv3 as not good enough to switch to or not worth switching to without good reason. He hasn't been super consistent with his statements though.

reinventing the wheel

[m2943]

The technique is quite old and usually used for detecting malware. Their particular implementation is also pretty primitive.

In related news ...

[slashdotlurker]

Microsoft Corp. today offered to settle claims of GPL violations in its flagship products, Microsoft Office 2007 and Microsoft Windows XP, by agreeing to pay Free Software Foundation (FSF) a sum of $4.8 billion, and agreeing to discontinue the marketing of said products as closed source until all infringing code in the software is identified and removed to FSF's satisfaction. FSF sources could not be reached for immediate comment. Microsoft co-founder, CEO, and chief software architect, Wlliam Gates, in a press conference late Friday, stated that the episode had been a difficult one for Microsoft, and appealed for patience from shareholders and customers as his company scrambled to respond to the latest news.
The present case is a landmark case arising out of a series of sensational revelations last year that these products included infringing code, and that Microsoft stood in violation of GPL. Present readers will recall that the then CEO of Microsoft, Steven Ballmer initially rubbished the claims. However, that stance became untenable when scores of former Microsoft employees, notably in India and China, came out with startling accusations that their managers actively encouraged wholesale copying of GPL'ed code available in public domain to meet the unreasonable deadlines imposed by senior Microsoft functionaries. It now appears that certain portions of a failed Microsoft operating system (Windows Vista) released four years ago included significant amount of infringing GPL'ed code, and could form the basis of a series of new lawsuits.
Microsoft profits have been in a gradual decline for the past few years since its sponsored format (OOXML) failed to meet widespread acceptance as a document standard. Attempts to reverse engineer OOXML to make it compatible with the industry standard, ODF, have been less than successful. Industry analysts think that the decline and possible demise of Microsoft Office, unthinkable even 3 years ago, will cause only minor disruptions as most enterprise customers are standardized on GPL compatible OpenOffice.org v.4. Commercial solutions exist for migration of legacy documents to OpenDocument format and should be suitable for most customers.
A year ago, William Gates resumed his work at Microsoft as its CEO after Steven Ballmer resigned under acrimonious circumstances, and tried to remake the once vast organization as a services company. However, the company has faced severe competition from established global players like IBM, Wipro, Infosys and TCS and struggled to meet market expectations.
The Justice Department's two year old investigation into questionable marketing practices by Microsoft and allegations of misleading customers is still underway. Justice department spokespersons would not be drawn into commenting on rumors of impending charges under the Rico statute for blackmailing computer system manufacturers over a period of 10 years.
Microsoft stock (MSFT) fell 12% in moderate trading at close.

Re:Consider the student's culture, too!

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple years ago, a manager outsourced some programming work to India. When I reviewed their work, I was impressed, but the code was inconsistent (quality, indent style, variable names, etc). I figured maybe parts were written by a new programmer. A couple days later, I accidentally discovered that a lot of the code (the part that impressed me) had been copied from a GPL program. I alerted my manager, but he didn't care. I alerted the outsource company, they didn't care. I alerted our legal department, and they seemed to care a lot.

Long story short, the manager got fired and I replaced him. We ended up using the original GPL software with some modifications (which were contributed back).

What is the effect on Microsoft?

[Lost Penguin]

Balmer is throwing chairs again......

Re:The Bungi is the problem.

[jb.hl.com]

What would a Windoze user like you know about freedom? Why should anyone listen to what you have to say about free software licenses?

What would a zealot like you know about "Windoze"? Why should anyone listen to what you have to say about Microsoft/Apple/your "non-free" enemy du jour?

Umm

[domatic]

I suppose you've never seen the sheer amount of whinging that takes place everytime a story about enforcing the GPL comes up? "Holy Shit! If the GPL is enforced then business will avoid Open Source and MS will 0wnz3r the werld!!!!" I take the reverse tack to the one you take. If it is OK for the likes of MS and Adobe to enforce their licenses then why is it the sheer height of "hippie zealotry" for FOSS coders to enforce theirs?

Proprietary source code tends to be preyed upon by other proprietary interests. That isn't right either but the lawyers will fight it out. There really isn't a community to outrage. What DOES provoke outrage is the sheer amount of patent and trade-secret reachery that goes on. Open Source projects DON'T WANT tainted code. OSS code that can't be freely redistributed legally is mostly useless.

Hello world in how many L*n?x system calls?

[tepples]

Could the difference between TheRaven64's Hello World in 2 dozen system calls and AC's Hello World in 2 system calls have something to do with use of int main(void) vs. int main(int argc, char *argv[], or perhaps printf() vs. puts() vs. write()? Or is there something deeper?

Re:Hello world in how many L*n?x system calls?

[Random832]

Could the difference between TheRaven64's Hello World in 2 dozen system calls and AC's Hello World in 2 system calls have something to do with use of int main(void) vs. int main(int argc, char *argv[], or perhaps printf() vs. puts() vs. write()? Or is there something deeper? int main(void) vs _start:, printf() vs mov eax,4; int 80h

Anticompetitive

[tepples]

How many anti-RIAA stories are posted on /. because they are trying to detect and sue people for copyright violation. But when it's your property that's being stolen, it's good to detect violators and threaten lawsuits.

That's because the major labels in the RIAA, along with their music publisher counterparts, have engaged in anticompetitive behavior. For instance, through payola classic and new payola, the major labels have forced their works on shoppers in grocery stores and forced their works on children riding school buses. With the effect of cryptomnesia case law such as Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, this forced listening contaminates the public with potential liability for copyright infringement.

Does the free software community do anything like that?

Re:FSF and Stallman have endorsed permissive licen

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

libvorbis and libtheora are trivial? Please.

Too bad for SCO!

[microbee]

They should have known this earlies, but now it's too late.

Re:Fancy That, GNU does DRM

[bky1701]

This isn't exactly DRM. Nether has it been adapted by the FSF at all, nor endorsed by any FSF members or important developers that I know of. I'd hardly say that it has been decided that "the GPL needs DRM". This is really little more than someone yelling "hey look what I did!" and a sensational slashdot article toting it as a way to detect "GPL theft".

The world is not ending, what you always predicted is not true. Put down the pitchforks and return to your homes.

Re:The Bungi is the problem.

[WNight]

Ah twitter, I see your problem. You've got an AC trying to crawl up your ass. One dumb enough to think we need a link to your user page.

Seriously though AC, there's a difference between never using FOSS and using Windows for years, developing for it despite the crappy APIs, and supporting other users with it. One gives you *no* experience, the other gives you a great deal. Are you fucking daft?

Besides, the ultimate example of free software vs proprietary was Code Red. There were instructions for OSS (to block the infection) long before there were patches for Windows. The only safe way to use a Windows server then (all the time really) was to put it behind a non-windows machine and filter malformed requests. What more needs to be known about it?

Single-source proprietary crap. Does nobody understand the benefit of multiply-sourced commodity parts?

Re:The Bungi is the problem.

[Macthorpe]

The Bungi just admitted to never really having used free software. Where?

Re:Fancy That, GNU does DRM

[jellomizer]

Close your Eyes, Plug your Ears and go LA LA LA.
Its DRM. It is just done differently then other DRMs. Because with GPL the freedoms are taken away from the developers you use DRM To insure that the developers are Its still DRM just targeted at a different group. See this as what it is Hypocrisy, work to keep this out from GPL and in the spirit of GPL not just ignore the facts like a mindless GPL Follower as a good thing, but see it as effecting our rights, possibly giving false positives for people who didn't use GPL code.

Re:The Bungi is the problem.

[dedazo]

HAHAHAH! Oh, the pain. Thanks for the link!

BSD network code

[Peaker]

Microsoft basically took the BSD network code into Windows.

You claim this has not harmed BSD in any way, because they still have that code.

But this ignores the fact that if Microsoft had to develop their own network code instead of using BSD's code, they would have had less of an advantage in the OS market. This would almost certainly mean more BSD users (perhaps by a slight margin, but there are probably many more pieces of BSD'ish code in Windows), and less Windows users. More BSD users would bring more developers. By closing up a fork of BSD's code, Microsoft gained an unfair competitive advantage (BSD cannot take Microsoft's code) which took away resources from BSD.

As another poster mentioned, Microsoft used the BSD network code to sell more copies of Windows, that funded their work on Windows, and potentially on the BSD network code.

This funding may or may not prove an unfair advantage in their work on the network code derivative. By making a closed derivative to a BSD work far more attractive, it is de-facto "closing the code", as far as users are concerned. This is both because the practical advantages will for many require abandoning the older less-developed open version, and because it may become a de-facto standard or monopoly that forces users to use the code in its closed form.

So while the BSD writers may have had the best of intentions, their software users (Windows users) are not enjoying any of the freedoms that the BSD guys thought they were giving away.

So, if you are creating software with the purpose of reaching maximum popularity, or that the next "hop" (the next developers of it) can do what they want, BSD is for you.

If you want to develop software that is free, GPL is for you.

Re:BSD network code

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

Sure, if MS had to develop their own TCP stack, they'd have less of an advantage in the OS market. Would this have translated to more BSD users?
No. The market isn't a zero sum game. If Windows doesn't do as well, there's no reason BSD would do better. Afterall, they could have both sucked it up and OS/2 could have won.

In fact, if the BSD implementation was not as open as it were, every OS would have had to develop their own TCP stack or go GPL.
Going GPL is obviously not in the interest of many businesses.

What does this imply? TCP would not have become the standard it is now. And we'd be back in the same situation as the 80s where every network device had to speak Arcnet, Appletalk, a version of TCP compatible for each OS' TCP stack bugs, Lantastic, IPX/SPX...etc...

Simply put, if the reference design for TCP was GPLed instead of BSD, we're all fucked. Only GPLed OSs, of which there are little compared to non-GPL OSs, would have that stack. Every other OS would have their own implementation complete with various bugs and inconsistencies.

If you think that "oh, that web page doesn't work with my version of firefox" is bad, then what about "oh, my linux box can't talk with any solaris hosts, unless it's got solaris TCP version 7.56.9-beta42 and my kernel is 2.8.666." or some crap like that.

The simple fact that because a BSD-licensed TCP stack allows any OS, regardless of size, intentions, or evilness as judged by us Slashdotters, to take the stack and integrate it into their OS demonstrates it's own ability to maintain freedom:
If everybody's starting with this stack, you're starting with a standard version of which you need to maintain compatibility with or you have cut yourself out of the community to your own detriment.
If you have some brilliant ideas to make it better, sure, you can let everybody else know and contribute back, or it could be a trade secret of yours that you'll have to maintain on your own. The fact that the original code is free and out there and enjoyed by as many people as possible has already been fulfilled even when you closed your fork. Besides, maintaining and significant changes and then merging in new developments from the mainline is still a pain in the ass no matter what. If it wern't, you probably didn't make any changes significant enough for people to care anyways, so it's not like we as a whole lose.

As far as the users of the code are concerned, in the case of TCP, they are enjoying one of the most important freedoms the writers intended: That their computer can communicate with the world. The majority of Windows users arn't programmers anyways. But no matter who you are, having a computer that can network with everybody else's is pretty important.

The way I see it. BSD helps proliferation. GPL encourages work to be consolidated. The question isn't what's "freer", it's who you want using it.

Anyways, I agree with the claim this doesn't harm BSD because this is exactly what they wanted. They want people using their code.
Another way of thinking of it? You know OLPC right? And how Intel/MS wanted to subsidize cheap PCs in the OLPC market just to proliferate Windows? Read this and tell me what you think: http://wilshipley.com/blog/2006/11/youve-gotta-fig ht-for-your-right-to.html
I see the similarity. When Windows adopted the BSD stack, the authors of the BSD stack basically won.

Re:BSD network code

[mwvdlee]

I have released code under BSD license (as well as GPL, ZLib/LibPNG/, Boost, public domain and proprietary, and probably a few others).

The LEAST of my concern in releasing ANY open source is some childish popularity contest.

The only valid reason for me has always been the hope of getting something in return. In the case of BSD, this return is usually "applications that work better". Without the BSD TCP-stack, Windows would probably be worse quality, how would that have benefitted anybody except the anti-Microsoft zealot?

Re:BSD network code

[Peaker]

If Windows was worse - it would have had a harder time becoming a monopoly and using the funds it receives to destroy BSD (and other open competitors) as best they could.

Re:BSD network code

[Nazlfrag]

Microsoft basically took the BSD network code into Windows.

You claim this has not harmed BSD in any way, because they still have that code.

In fact, the BSD bunch have better code seeing as it stayed open. Yes, BSD is not just unharmed but strengthened by giving away source code to competitors. Without the ability to redistribute under any old license, they would never have become a de-facto standard.

So, if you are creating software with the purpose of reaching maximum popularity, or that the next "hop" (the next developers of it) can do what they want, BSD is for you.

If you want to develop software that is free, GPL is for you.

So, if I want open code that anyone is free to do with as they wish, I opt for BSD.

If I want open code that constrains derivatives to an identical model, I choose GPL.

They both result in free, open software. One constrains derivatives, one doesn't. This does not make one or the other better or worse, it just makes them different.

By no means does it make one free and the other not. Your last statement applies to all Open Source licenses.

Re:BSD network code

[Laurence0]

I see it from a slightly different perspective. If the code is BSD licensed, someone can come along and use it without contributing. In a way, that means BSD doesn't lose, but it doesn't gain either. If the code is GPLed, then if the person who uses it makes any changes or improvements, they have to release the code for it, so the GPL people potentially gain some better code.

Wake up and smell the dictionary

[Peaker]

Language is what it is, and it changes over time, but I'd be really disappointed if this one was let to slip, because rather than the language changing because it's more convenient or better, it's changing because a group of powerful corporations want to confuse the issue for their own control and commercial benefit.

I used to think the same, but you can check modern dictionaries. The word theft already includes copyright infringement.

The battle was lost. The best way to act is to simply declare that some theft is bad, and some not that bad.

I think its quite a good strategy, e.g: The "Pirate Party". Instead of trying to fight the language changes, embrace them and proudly claim you are a pirate. In this case, I can proudly claim I am a thief, as I do not support copyright law and it is not enforced anyhow.

Re:The Bungi is the problem.

[The Bungi]

I don't have to imagine your hatred

Don't confuse disagreement with hatred. Hatred is what fills your life, not mine.

Why should anyone listen to what you have to say about free software licenses?

Because I don't consider them holy prayers.

Re:The Bungi is the problem.

[The Bungi]

The Bungi just admitted to never really having used free software. That makes him an idiot.

I'm really looking forward to your pointing out where I said that. Really.

Otherwise, I suggest you shut the fuck up.