Sothink Violated the FlashGot GPL and Stole Code

ShineTheLight sends in news of two Firefox plug-ins: FlashGot, the original, and Sothink, the GPL-violating come-lately. "People at Sothink decided to violate the GPL by stealing a piece of core code from FlashGot and using it without even the decency of covering their tracks. It is an exact copy of a previous version of FlashGot. This deception came to light when users reported to the FlashGot support forum that their software was not working right. Some digging led to the discovery that the older module that Sothink stole and used verbatim was overriding the more recent engine on the machines of those who had both installed and it was causing the issue. It has been reported to AMO and the FlashGot developer is aware of it. The Sothink people have completely ignored and been silent on the subject. This is why most good programmers will stop contributing to the global community because there are those who will steal their work, pass it off as their own, never acknowledge or give credit, and then shamefully stick their head in the sand and ignore the consequences." The three most recent reviews of Sothink point out this plug-in's dishonest nature. A number of earlier, one-line, 5-star reviews — expressed in a similar style — sound suspiciously like astroturfing.

Comments

Firefox extension source?

[phantomcircuit]

It's not like firefox extensions are compiled.

Re:Firefox extension source?

[rakslice]

You're missing the point. With GPLed software, when someone is distributing an altered copy of the software, it's whether they make the source code for their version available or not that makes _the_ difference between 'theft' (i.e. copyright violation) and them just taking advantage of their freedom to modify the software (what the GPL is all about).

Aside: For developers and advanced users who have been dealing with GPLed software for years, and even for many hangers-on who have followed the details of GPL-related news stories on /. for years, this point is so basic that it usually goes without saying. But the quirks and emergent properties of the GPL aren't common knowledge in the broader software development world or the internets in general, and so when it does go without saying, it could easily result in a -1 Troll when a reader doesn't make the connection.

And how is th different from the RIAA and MPAA ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Inquiringmindswanttoknow !!

If it's okay to download movies and CDs and herpes, what is all the hoopla about gpl ?? Either it's okay to STEAL or it's not okay. If you want it both ways, just say you're BI and get on with the rest of your life.

Fact is, NO CODE WAS STOLEN !! It still exists right where it was before. Only, maybe, somebody has a COPY of this. NOTHING WAS LOST !! IP is a figment if COPYRIGHT HOLDERS imaginations !! NOTHING TO SEE HERE !! Move along !!

Re:Wrong crowd for this

[trifish]

> It's not stealing, it's a copyright violation :P

Actually, it's copyright infringement. The word violation is used with the word license (as in GPL violation).

Lots of ffmpeg gpl violations

[BeardedChimp]

Over the last few years a lot of companies have sprang up using ffmpeg as a backend while shoving some putrid gui over the top which somehow justifies the pricetag (in this case "Video Encoder Engine for Adobe Flash" costs $600!).

They tend to fall into two camps, those who attempt to use the lgpl parts of ffmpeg and publish the license; and those who outright ignore the gpl or pretend they've followed it.
ffmpeg keeps a "Hall of shame" for these violaters but sothinkmedia have not yet been added.

I downloaded their videoconverter and ran it through wine. It gave me a eula with some non-gpl/lgpl terms which I duly said yes to "You may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network. You may not recompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form".

Program installed what's this, avcodec.dll oh dear. Compiled in with x264, xvid etc. so GPL rather than LGPL. For a token gesture it created a folder called xvid with the GPL placed in there even though they violate most of it.

Stealing code from flashgot is a minor issue compared to that of ffmpeg.

Re:Does it matter?

[John Hasler]

> But if it incorporates GPL code, it automatically falls under the GPL.

No it doesn't. If it incorporates GPL code without itself being under the GPL it infringes the copyright on the incorporated code.

Re:This IS A GPL VIOLATION.

[nadaou]

GPL requires that you ship code with the delivery,

No it doesn't. It requires that you ship the offer of code with the binary.

Please actually read the thing before making ADAMANT BUT COMPLETELY WRONG CLAIMS IN ALL CAPS.
That goes for moderators too, at least those sucked in by posters relying on authoritative sounding claims.

and that the package is licensed under a GPL acceptable license.

No, that it is licensed under the GPL license. (or if >=, then >=)

That's _it_.

Section 2a. of the GPL2 is 4 lines long. The entire license file is 339 lines long. i.e. that's not just _it_ at all.

It does not require you to perform any advertising,

Sure it does. You must both advertise to the downstream user their rights under the license, and in some circumstances the No Warranty text should be shown. This is Term 1, it's not exactly buried in the text.

nor acknowledge where the code came from.

The original copyright statements must remain intact. (Term 1.)

You want attribution? Use the old BSD license, or the new Apache one, not the GPL.

An interesting commentary on the goals of the licenses and motivations of authors can be taken from this.

I would say that plugin address spaces aren't kept separate (thus avoiding the issue entirely) is a Firefox _bug_ (or perhaps it's designed that way on purpose),

maybe that is a Firefox bug.

rather than any GPL violation.

WTF are you talking about?? Please explain why it can not be both these unrelated things?

So far, nothing in the summary (nor any of the articles) points out the GPL violation.

Once again, WTF are you talking about?? Except the part in the summary which says they incorporated the code of a GPL project without licensing their plugin as GPL nor letting their users know their rights under that license.

Technically a customer has to request the code and be denied it, but probably the failure to advertise that the code is available to end users under the terms of the GPL is enough to get them legally in the poop and get slapped with an injunction.

Additionally, if you're saying that plugins that are GPL'ed can't coexist with plugins that aren't GPL'ed, that's an interesting statement.

Where does this strawman come from? The problem here is not that 2 plugins of differing license sit side by side, it is that GPL code is being mixed with non-GPL code into a non-GPL product and redistributed as non-GPL. The fact that it is a for-profit company doing this doesn't change much beyond kill any innocent-mistake excuses.

If that were true, I would hope that the GPL is _banned_ as an acceptable plugin license in order to prevent all Firefox users from being copyright violators.

All Firefox users are absolutely fine to use a mix of GPL and non GPL plugins at run time. What they can't do is redistribute the things together as a single monolithic program to others without relicensing the entire package as GPL. The GPL has to do with redistribution, not use. (ie the "copy" in "copyright")

Please RTF License! It's really not that hard.