Slashdot Mirror
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.
It's not like firefox extensions are compiled.
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.
[citation needed]
I really don't agree with that sentiment. I mean, there have been a few recent cases (BusyBox) where the company is making money off of it but I don't think SoThink is making a ton of cash off of their plugin. I am not defending SoThink in any way and hope that FlashGot takes action but instead of opting to sue SoThink, I hope he first tries to force them to open up their own tool under the GPL if it is tangled into his code or at least realease all the modifications they have done to his code. He could always turn it over to the EFF for help if he really wants to prosecute to the fullest extent. I doubt that lawsuits are going to help this situation or deter others. They'll just get more crafty about it if they feel the need to.
My work here is dung.
Sic the RIAA on them, then they'll have to pay a million bucks too.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
To quote the quote; "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." Bullshit. Show your source. The advantage here with open source... violators can easily be found. Since the code is GPL there is zero risk of legal repercussions.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Why would you even download this? Their web page and blog looks like it was created from an SEO program for selling viagra.
"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."
Stealing? A digital artifact?
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
If my code gets 'stolen', used without my permission, breaking the terms of the license; what difference does it make as to the license I chose to release it under.
"better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07
It's not theft, it's copyright infringement and plagiarism. It's not theft when the RIAA are the victim, and it's not theft when programmers are the victim. Two completely different illegal actions. It's also not a number of other offences - it's not murder, it's not speeding, it's not jaywalking, and it's not theft. Different names for different offences. Get it?
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.
This is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. It's a good thing that code can be borrowed from one program and used in another. Why re-invent the wheel after all? I thought that's why we wrote open source software - not to receive credit, but because we want to share our work with the world.
The crime here is not that one programmer "stole" the work of another. The crime is that one programmer took advantage of an open resource, but kept their modifications closed.
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
It's not stealing, it's a copyright violation :P
You're obviously new here...
Piracy and GPL violations both hurt workers in the field of computing/entertainment/etc. However, there's a big difference between a random Joe copying an mp3 and a corporate entity stealing a product and re-marketing it as their own.
Yet we live in a society where surveillance is a double-edged sword. It's more favorable to our freedoms to let someone get away with copying a Miley Cyrus song rather than letting bureaucrats crush us and turn daily life into red-tape + TSA-like conditions.
Does this shift everything in favor of the little guys? Sure. Life isn't fair, but we hope to improve society (even if it's a slow process). Given the proclivity of human nature, it's FAR safer for smaller crimes to go unpunished than grant corporations overwhelming powers and let LARGE crimes go unpunished. Case in point: Recent housing & banking economic scandals.
Ok here is the correct URL to slashdot Sothink. Don't bother the Mozilla server linkeded above.
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 !!
>GPL stops to be enforceable.
When has the GPL, in particular, been enforced by any agent of any government?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
There are all kinds of unscrupulous people who will happily take other people's work and pass it as their own. For example, there's an entire bunch of websites devoted to bundling free Wii homebrew utilities with warez-loading apps and a torrent client and selling it as the ultimate Wii softmod get-all-your-games-for-free package. Examples: homebreware.com, playbreware.com, homebrewinstaller.com, mywiidownloads.com... the list goes on. They have sales numbers that are a sizable chunk of total homebrew users and mainly cater to the clueless, earning large amounts of cash for basically nothing.
Our "core" software (specifically, the Twilight Hack, Homebrew Channel, DVDX, BootMii, HackMii Installer, etc) is mostly distributed under a closed-source restrictive "download it from our site and use it, don't redistribute it" license precisely due to these kinds of websites. For example, ordinarily we wouldn't care at all about people mirroring these apps, but one of the favorite excuses from the aforementioned scamsites is that "they're just linking to some third-party mirror". the I've tried to get some of them taken down but it's damn near impossible and their payment processors (Plimus and ClickBank typically) move very slowly and do nothing at all (which is not surprising; after all, they get a cut of the profits). These sites tend to work on affiliate programs and therefore there are dozens of "affiliates" happily buying Google Ads and setting up spam blogs just to promote the scams.
What's even worse is that the warez utilities work backwards too - they let the scammers "pirate" our freeware and sell it for money. For example, our installer includes a large full-screen "if you paid for this you were scammed" warning, but the scammers have now used tools for Wii Channel piracy to distribute the Homebrew Channel without the installer, bypassing that screen. Every time this happens they get a nice 3-6 months until Nintendo puts out another update that would force them to use updated hacks and tools.
This is one of the reasons why I gave up on Wii development. And I don't have plans to touch any console or system where piracy might become a big incentive to run homebrew. Piracy brings in hordes of clueless idiots who just want free games, generally poisons the homebrew community, divides it due to the differing opinions on it, and also comes with dollar-eyed scammers who want to make a quick buck of it all.
I wonder what the copyright abolitionist would say when copyright is abolished and the GPL stops to be enforceable... Oh well.
If copyright were abolished, we would be free to copy and modify software without legal repercussions, so we wouldn't need to rely so much on the GPL. Of course, no modifying could be done unless programmers voluntarily published their source code. But in a theoretical world without copyright, there would be no reason not to publish your source code - because you wouldn't be able to profit off of software sales in a world where anyone could legally copy your program for free. It would be advantageous to publish the source code, to ensure quality and make bugs and security holes visible.
In short, if copyright were abolished, we would have no use for the GPL.
That's rather a bold statement. It might even be true if there were no possible redress. But publicizing the wrongdoing and ousting the offenders is quite a powerful part of the community. Of course any similarly-wronged author, proprietary or open-source, also has the law on their side. Hardly an abject situation.
Anybody want a peanut?
Remember, kids; GPL violation is only an issue with code that uses the GPL. If you don't use the GPL, you won't have its' drawbacks.
No, the GPL violation is only an issue if you use code that is only licenced under the GPL and is not yours. If you are the owner, GPL is not an issue. And if you are not the owner, then you can't relicence to BSD unless you rewrite the GPL portion from scratch.
So, if you don't use code covered by the GPL, you won't have its drawbacks... Unfortunately, you won't have the code either.
Mod parent up. You're absolutely right. No code was "stolen". Code can't be stolen. This is just a small license violation. Not a big deal. The perpetrators are at best ignorant, and at worst, selfish, yet the summary paints them out to be the scum of the earth.
No, the perpetrators committed a crime much worse than theft -- plagiarism. Don't believe me? Go ask any tenured professor at your nearest university.
Steal something from a lab where you work, you'll probably lose your chance at tenure and the job. Commit plagiarism and you'd best start looking for a new career.
...but has the copyright owner confirmed that this was not done with permission? I doubt that it was, but you really should make sure before making accusations of copyright infringement. After all, enforcement is entirely up to the copyright owner.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
You just have to go back to the primordial soup to find their most recent common ancestor.
*joke*
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
When he said refactor it, I read that to mean study it, learn how it works, and write new, fresh code that has the same end-user outcome.
You may have read "refactor" to mean move bits and pieces around, unwind loops, change some orders of operations, but by and large re-use the low-level code as written. While that is a legitimate use of the term "refactor" it doesn't work in the context of "how can we stay legal without having to comply with this messy license."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
FlashGot is made by the same author that writes NoScript. The same NoScript that had malicious code that interfered with AdBlock Plus' functionality. Karma is a bitch, basically. I am really not feeling any sympathy for him. Flame on!
So you think whoever made Flashgot is fuming right now, saying "HOW DARE THEY TAKE CODE OF MINE WITHOUT GIVING ME PROPER CREDIT FOR CREATING IT?" Honestly, I'm sure they care more about their code being closed than whether or not they got credit.
It's different in the academic world, where your job depends on your reputation. If people discover that you plagiarized a journal article, they won't be able to trust anything you write. How can you be sure a source is credible if the author can't even be bothered to do their own research? On the other hand, reputation plays little role in firefox extensions. I don't care who programmed it. I only want it to work.
You're right, it's not exactly the same as other forms of stealing. But the general term for this is stealing. Presumably this would be listed as another definition in a dictionary.
If you can steal someone's heart, if you can steal a kiss, if you can steal cable, if you can steal an identity, there's no reason this cannot be stealing also.
It has been this way a long time too, stealing cable started in the 70s.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
If copyright were abolished, we would be free to copy and modify software without legal repercussions, so we wouldn't need to rely so much on the GPL.
That's a bit like saying that a person without arms wouldn't rely so much on gloves.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Fifty comments in this thread and no one has mentioned the Software Freedom Law Center? Amateurs!
The lead developer for FlashGot needs to contact the SFLC. Right. Now. The SFLC has lawyers on staff who eat companies like this for breakfast. Or at least, you know, they'll give them a very stern talking-to.
He shouldn't contact the supposed violators (that could cause legal murkiness), he should not go fishing around for evidence of the violation (again, more lawyerly problems), he should not pass Go, and in no way shape or form should he try to collect $200 from anyone.
Once he talks to the lawyers then he'll know what steps he should take to document the violation and then to approach the violators. By putting his ducks in a row first and by communicating with a lawyer, he'll have a much easier time approaching the Sothink company and getting the violation resolved.
Pro tip: The last time I emailed the SFLC it took 13 days for them to respond, so in order to get the ball rolling on resolving this problem I'd suggest picking up the phone and calling them.
coding is life
The difference is, arms are useful.To the copyright abolitionist, copyright stopped being useful when computers empowered individuals to copy and distribute information as many times as they wanted at no cost.
Nobody wants to lose their arms. Copyright abolitionists want to lose copyright. Thats the point.
Commit plagiarism and you'd best start looking for a new career.
Didn't Joe "I 3 the media companies" Biden have a big problem with commiting plagerism?
I think your presumption is tenuous at best.
In a kind of a way, you're correct. Unfortunately, the way that you're correct doesn't help your argument any.
The way that you're correct is that it requires a finer analysis to actually determine which is better for society. Unfortunately, after the final analysis...well, the RIAA paid to have laws passed which favored them and which many consider to be blatantly unconstitutional. (I know, the courts agree with them that the laws are constitutional. This doesn't convince me.)
Since the RIAA & it's member companies wrote and paid for the laws that benefit them, I don't believe that there's any justice in anyone else being obliged to obey them. As a practical matter, I'll agree that it's dangerous to act on that belief, under the presumption that we live in a just world.
To my mind this puts the RIAA & it's member companies in the same category as other criminal conspiracies.
OTOH, neither the FSF nor any other Free Software organization has successfully lobbied for laws supporting it's stance. So if it takes advantage of existing laws, they can't be blamed if someone else finds the laws unjust.
I'm sure that better arguments could be made, but this one suffices for me, so I've never felt obligated to dig deeper.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I should have said 'a new career outside academia'. Politics, of course, is the sort of cesspool where plagiarism seems perfectly normal....
If there is no native code in Sothink, then it's effectively source-available. So, the only question is one of license. But if it incorporates GPL code, it automatically falls under the GPL.
In a world without copyright, all commercial software money would be made off support contracts. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it means the exact opposite of what you intend will happen in a lot of cases. Developers will clamp down as tight as they can on their source, protecting it as a trade secret. As long as they are the only ones with the source, they have a huge advantage in giving support. It is a hundred times easier to patch a bug, or add a requested feature, when you have the source. Currently you can make the source available if you so choose, without licensing it like the GPL. In fact, Microsoft does just that for Windows. If copyright ended today, do you think they would just shrug their shoulders and gpl everything? No, they would do everything in their power to consolidate as much knowledge of of Windows and it's source with them, so competitors can not quickly create their own windows distro (for lack of a better term) and claim a piece of the support contract pie.
One of the reasons I've never been a fan of the GPL -- you can use GPL code and get in trouble over it; software isn't truly free until anyone can use it freely, without worrying about legal trouble. The forced reciprocation, IMHO, has hurt the open source movement severely. Companies actually have good reason to fear "free" GPL software, because unlike speech, GPL comes with strings attached.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
I think you should re-read my post. You're reading into it a point I'm not trying to make.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
But in a theoretical world without copyright, there would be no reason not/i> to publish your source code - because you wouldn't be able to profit off of software sales in a world where anyone could legally copy your program for free.
That shows a lack of insight for a start.
They couldn't copy your software if no-one but you had access to it in the first place. You could sit on the software, using it for what it was intended for yourself (i.e. giving yourself an advantage in providing an end product, or possibly carrying out a service on behalf of others) and not letting anyone else have it at all.
Or you could force everyone to use the software through your servers (i.e. they only get access to the interface and the output, not the underlying code- just like a server-based web app or service).
No, you're probably not going to make as much money that way. But it's still a flaw in your idealised, lack-of-thought regurgitation of "in a copyright-free world, no-one will have reason to hold on to their code" argument.
And that's disregarding the fact that some worthwhile code *might* not be written in the first place if people couldn't make money off by selling it with the protection of copyright.
Now, one could argue these points in more depth. I'm not saying that I agree with them or that they couldn't be rebutted. (Because I know from experience that at least one kneejerking idiot will otherwise assume that I'm taking the opposite position to your argument rather than simply pointing out the glaring holes and omissions in it).
My issue was that you didn't even consider either of these rather obvious issues in the first place, which pretty much negates the value of your argument.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
you can encode/obfuscate the code, which violates GPL as you're not distributing/making available the source code
I just downloaded one of their other things (swfcatcher.xpi, it's the first one I found a bare URL for) and unzipped it, and the main part (chrome/swfcatcher.jar) is Java, not JS. I assume the one in question here is similar.
That would be a good reason to publish only binaries and fill them up with all sorts of hard-to-defeat DRM-like piracy countermeasures and arcane tactics like remote identifying and banning computers from running the SW.
Someone might manage to defeat them at some point, but if they didn't buy the software legitimately, they don't get bugfixes, upgrades, or addon packages.
$80,000 per line.
Le français vous intéresse?
It has been this way a long time too, stealing cable started in the 70s.
So that's when the "stealing by copying" bullshit started. I'd rather kill off the incorrect use of the word than try to justify it with the "been happening a long time now" excuse.
Yes language evolves, but this isn't evolution, it's corruption by those with a vested interest.
As the GP said, this is copyright infrigement and plagiarism, not stealing. If someone made a clone of you without your permission, would it be murder?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
No theft is ocurring at all. Copyright infringement is not theft.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
But in a theoretical world without copyright, there would be no reason not/i> to publish your source code - because you wouldn't be able to profit off of software sales in a world where anyone could legally copy your program for free.
That shows a lack of insight for a start. They couldn't copy your software if no-one but you had access to it in the first place. You could sit on the software, using it for what it was intended for yourself (i.e. giving yourself an advantage in providing an end product, or possibly carrying out a service on behalf of others) and not letting anyone else have it at all.
Problem is, you really can't make money by making software and hiding it from everyone. Having a personal benefit from hidden software might give your business a slight edge, but not strong enough to be profitable. And "carrying out a service on behalf of others"? Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean someone would write a program, hide it from everyone, but offer to run the software for them on their behalf? Like suppose I write a web browser, and I hide it from everyone, but I offer to print out webpages for a dollar? I doubt people would tolerate that.
Or you could force everyone to use the software through your servers (i.e. they only get access to the interface and the output, not the underlying code- just like a server-based web app or service). No, you're probably not going to make as much money that way. But it's still a flaw in your idealised, lack-of-thought regurgitation of "in a copyright-free world, no-one will have reason to hold on to their code" argument.
That is a legitimate concern that I did not consider. That *would* be a way for people to profit off software in a copyright free environment, and I feel dumb for not thinking of it. So I was wrong on that point. However, I don't see how having the GPL would prevent this either. I would hope in a hypothetical copyrightless future, good people would create free software alternatives to software-as-service. But perhaps I hope too much.
I apologize for misunderstanding. What point are you trying to make? I have trouble understanding your simile.
Still, both are wrong.
Saying it's better/"more favorable to our freedoms" to download music than having large corporations preform some illegal activity is retarded.
The fact is simply that larger corporations/industries have the resources to prosecute "the little guys" and we're just butthurt we can't get back at them.
Another possibility I didn't consider. But what would keeping the GPL around in a world without copyright do to prevent companies from clamping down on source? Would anything stop companies from clamping down on source in this scenario?
And at my old job the worst crime was "slacking off". It depends who you ask. Stop talking nonsense.
That would be a good reason to publish only binaries and fill them up with all sorts of hard-to-defeat DRM-like piracy countermeasures and arcane tactics like remote identifying and banning computers from running the SW.
We live in a world with copyright, and that already happens! The only difference in a world free of copyright is, without the threat of legal retribution, piracy would become much more widespread. DRM would be defeated very quickly (like today, where you can find zero-day warez) and all of those upgrades and addons could be pirated too.
Problem is, you really can't make money by making software and hiding it from everyone.
Well... I thought that was what I was discussing. Obviously you can't make money by selling the application directly, but you can grant access to the service or sit on it and exploit the fact that you have a *tool* (i.e. a means to an end) that no-one else has.
And "carrying out a service on behalf of others"? Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean someone would write a program, hide it from everyone, but offer to run the software for them on their behalf?
I wouldn't put it like that. If (say) Pixar were the only people who had halfway-decent 3D software that no-one else did- or had the prospect of developing in the forseeable future- then they could either exploit that to make their own animations miles better than anyone else's.
Or (in response to your question), they could provide services on others' behalf. That might be the form of them finding out what the client wants and doing pretty much all the work themselves; models, rendering, characters, design etc. Or at the other extreme they might provide a rendering service.
As I acknowledged, this wouldn't work in all cases; it certainly wouldn't work for a web browser, as you implied.
I would hope in a hypothetical copyrightless future, good people would create free software alternatives to software-as-service.
Quite possibly. Nothing I said would contradict that; it was a rebuttal of one specific assertion you made- paraphrasing- that in a copyright-free world there could *never* be any benefit in not giving one's software away. Which- IMHO- is wrong as a blanket statement, and flawed as an argument against copyright in general. But in some circumstances it could still be beneficial to do so, and- as you said- some altruistic people might release their work freely anyway- nothing stopping that.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I see your point. Your arguments make a lot of sense. I would hope somebody with points would mod you up.
No. A person without, prosthetic or biologic, hands has no use for gloves.
Wow. Amazing...
Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I have been from time to time, and because I've misread posts here and there, but I believe the assumption you are making here is that a person has a right to use any published source as they see fit simply because the source is published. Here is why I make that case:
If there is no GPL implementation of a particular bit of code I need for my project, I'm "up shit creek" as they say from around my parts. I have to "invent the wheel" as it were, or at the very least, pay a licensing fee to a company who already has invented the wheel to save myself the trouble. If there is a GPL implementation of a particular bit of code I have two options. Abide by the licensing terms of the GPL or fall back to buying a 3rd party library, feature, etc. I fail to see how anyone is worse off under this scenario than the previous. Hell, I can probably convince the developer of the GPL code to license me the code if I throw enough money his way, and it probably will be cheaper than the proprietary code that is my alternative. The final scenario where a BSD implementation exists and makes the argument moot; copy at will, and everybody is happy.
The parenthetical that I bolded struck me as the most outrageous part of your post. That phrase implies that any developer has the right to use existing code in any way, shape, or form if they are up against a deadline. Christ almighty, man! Procrastination on your part does not necessitate an emergency on mine!
Putting the shoe on the other foot, lets say that the BSD license is too strict for my needs (to be realistic, lets say it's a 4-clause BSD). Does the fact that the source is out there give me the right to just use it as I see fit? Apparently so. What if I absolutely need public domain code? I might lose my job if I don't strip out the copyright notice of this BSD library. Maybe if you disclaimed the copyright to your code, I wouldn't have to violate the BSD license. Your license is so strict, that I had no choice but to hide my transgressions.
What you're really saying is:
The GPL is too strict, so developers have no choice but to hide their use of it. The BSD license should be used, so developers don't have to hide anything.
Someone releases some code that they think might be useful to someone, code that they were under no obligation to release at all, and you have the audacity to berate them because their license isn't the license that is best for you? Please tell me this really isn't what you're saying.
In a world without copyright, all commercial software money would be made off support contracts.
In a world without copyright more code would be closed source.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Or you could force everyone to use the software through your servers (i.e. they only get access to the interface and the output, not the underlying code- just like a server-based web app or service).
There are applications for which the bandwidth and latency of an Internet connection to your customers just don't cut it. One of these is video games that aren't turn-based: if the entire game runs on the server and just uses the customer's equipment to relay input, video, and sound, the player will see the compression artifacts and will feel the lag.
I'm curious. When people discuss illegal downloads via bittorrent or other P2P, numerous pedants jump on anyone who dares say the downloads are "stealing" music. They are quick to point out that making copies doesn't deprive the copyright owner of his song, unlike the situation when someone, say, steals a car. Calling downloading "stealing" is just propaganda from the RIAA to brainwash people, yadda yadda yadda.
Interesting how the same standard doesn't apply when the copied item is source code.
If (say) Pixar were the only people who had halfway-decent 3D software that no-one else did- or had the prospect of developing in the forseeable future- then they could either exploit that to make their own animations miles better than anyone else's.
Without copyright, everybody would torrent Pixar's animations anyway. Then how would Pixar make any money for Disney?
It's probably all moot b/c copyright law isn't going anywhere, except possibly stricter, and giving even more rights to content owners, however:
What i'm saying is software would get mechanisms built into it that prevent cracks from being successful.
Think "Windows Activation" and WGA but 1000% worse. Possibly every time you boot your machine up, and login, certain binaries have to be "downloaded" from your OS vendor, by a downloader.
Instead of code being written the way it is today, it may be written with subtle time-sensitive bugs designed to cause breakage (but legitimate SW users get an update before the 'breakage date' arrives).
e.g. Intentional things like the "Y2k bug" bugs that will be turned off in a later version by changing a #define.
And more software with online/SaaS components that can't be easily ripped off.
Yes, they stole , hours or perhaps days/months of work. Also others work as they reported issues, donated etc.
It is stealing. They stole a digital artifact, they stole "information", "knowledge". They took something without doing something required or giving something required (credit). It is 2009 already and you people have issues with understanding the difference between "virtual" and "real" things. Virtual things can cost money, time and even health and they don't really differ from real things you can hold with your hand.
In fact, Flashgot people could even sell their completely open source extension and could also have right to blame users who doesn't "buy" it. Just as explained there: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
It is not a movie, don't go into "but it is not stealing" mode immediately. Oh yes, pirating a Hollywood movie is stealing too... Like I explained above. I don't really care if producer is Satan himself.
I think that if copyright were abolished, the sale of software would still continue, albeit in a more limited way, paticularly in the business world, even if everything were open-sourced.
Think of this: if you are an IT manager, are you going to trust the OS of all your production machines to some random Joe Schmo's distribution of "Free OS" downloaded from freebies.com? No way, you are still going to get it from a reputable source, and if you have to pay for it, all the better. The sale is in fact a sort of support contract in itself, because the exchange of funds for software thus gives you the right to go after the seller, if not legally, at least create bad press, if there is a failure.
A similar thing would happen with entertainment media. Even though I can get just about any movie in digital form off of Pirate Bay practically the day it is released, I will still pay money to see it in the theater. Why? Because of the experience, and because I know the picture and sound quality are going to meet certain standards (e.g. THX). Just like I will still go to a concert even if I have downloaded the album.
The physical design of many hardware devices, such as automobiles, is pretty much open-source, hence the existence of Chilton's service manuals and the like. But would I theoretically trust my life to a car built from open specs by Larry down the street? Again, no way.
Yes, among hackers (of all stripes), no one would pay for anything anymore. But if I want to take the girlfriend to a movie, or acquire software for work that works as expected the first time, or trust my life to a car, I will gladly pay a fair price for the assurance that it will "just work."
The good news is that overtly crappy software (e.g. Windows ME & Vist) would never see the light of day. But good quality products will still be profitable, and will command a price.
Meanwhile, one of our upright citizens took the initiative and created a user account on Sothink's forum today just to post a link to this very article on /. On behalf of FOSS users everywhere, let me congratulate you on helping to enforce those negative stereotypes about us that hang like an albatross around our neck. Thanks a lot, bud.
It's a very dark ride.
Ummm... I guess you haven't noticed that a JAR file is also just a repurposed ZIP file, exactly like an XPI file?
If you open it, you'll find more JavaScript files plus some icons and the like... and just about every Firefox extension contains one or more JAR files - with no Java at all inside.
np: Jackie Leven & The Celtic Soulmen - Glenarm, Burning Box Of Beautiful Things (The Haunted Year: Spring - Man Bleeds In Glasgow)
"I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole
I love the double-standard so much. Piracy is fine but GPL violations ? OH GOD STOP THE PRESSES.
You write as if Slashdot would be one single person. Do I really have to explain that there are thousands of people commenting on Slashdot, with wildly varying opinions on different subjects. It could very well be that different subsets of the Slashdot populace are attracted to the articles on piracy and GPL violations, but apparently, your simple mind cannot fathom this. Unless you get down to individuals, you cannot claim that the entire Slashdot populace has a double standard and still expect to be taken seriously.
Just because you say it isn't so doesn't make it not so.
You want to declare you control the definition of the very "to steal" and then tell others how to use it. Well, you're not in control of the language, get over yourself.
Go look in a dictionary, there are a lot of forms of stealing that don't involve physical objects.
'to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.'
'to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show.'
and yes, even
'To give or enjoy (a kiss) that is unexpected or unnoticed.'
The problem here isn't that people are using words incorrectly. The problem is you, you have a narrow definition of the word and you want to tell others they can't do what you wouldn't do in their stead.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
You guess correctly. Anyone want to hunt up the URL for the correct .xpi then?
Several GPL lawsuits have been filed in the United States (Cisco and Verizon/Busybox off the top of my head). So far all have been settled before reaching court. However, the GPL has been upheld by a German court: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2007/07/skype-loses-gpl-lawsuit-in-germany.ars
we should turn around such violations so developers would become happy if someone try to do it again. Go and complain to http://gpl-violations.org/ or similar. I suspect they know how to deal with it, how to win the case and make some money possible.
GPL requires that you ship code with the delivery, and that the package is licensed under a GPL acceptable license. That's _it_. It does not require you to perform any advertising, nor acknowledge where the code came from. You want attribution? Use the old BSD license, or the new Apache one, not the GPL.
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), rather than any GPL violation.
So far, nothing in the summary (nor any of the articles) points out the GPL violation.
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. 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.
I'd like to think people have a breaking point. A point where they say "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore". I'd like to imagine if software were that intrusive, people would turn to piracy or free alternatives. One incident in reality supports my belief: the widespread piracy of Spore.
The GPL also specifies that derivative works (such as Sothink) must be distributed under the same license. What is the Sothink license? Can anyone find that out (I am having some trouble finding the exact license...)?
Palm trees and 8
Free as in freedom, not as in free beer. I thought that the world had moved past that misunderstanding, but now I see that it was just my circle of friends.
Palm trees and 8
"we wouldn't need to rely so much on the GPL"
With no copyright, you cannot rely on the GPL at all because it's unenforceable. Much like a person without arms wouldn't rely on gloves so much because they're unwearable.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
My point exactly.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I love the double-standard so much. Piracy is fine but GPL violations ? OH GOD STOP THE PRESSES.
Here's the difference:
If I copy code that you wrote, incorporate parts of it into my own software, and release it as my own without crediting you (either for sale in a commercial product or under a free license), I am plagiarizing your work. I am taking the credit for a work you created.
If I download a movie you created from a P2P network, and make it available for others to download from me, I am not taking any credit for creating the movie. If I rip a DVD and upload it via BitTorrent, not only will I not take the credit for creating the film, but I'll include a description that gives proper credit to the people who did, and links to the film's official web site and IMDB for more details. If I burn copies of the movie to DVD, put it in a plastic case and sell it on the street, I'll include a cover label with that same information, and make sure potential buyers don't mistakenly believe it's really my film.
If I copy a video game from a friend at a LAN party, and set up a shared drive on the LAN so everyone else can install it too, I am not taking any credit for creating the game myself. Everyone there understands that the company who did create the game put a lot of resources into its development, and their employees are proud of what they've created. If I charge admission for people to come to the party, nobody thinks I had anything to do with the creation of the games we're playing.
All of these are copyright violations, and I could profit from them. However, only the first example involves any sort of dishonesty. Many Slashdotters don't have a huge objection to copyright infringement by itself, as long as you're not profiting from it (for example, downloading a movie but not selling DVDs; sharing games at a LAN party but not charging admission). However, plagiarism is completely different, and if you plagiarize and profit from it, you're not going to get much sympathy.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
It's not a double standard. Copyleft is the opposite of copyright, just happens to use to hack existing copyright laws to achieve the desired effect.
Say defending copyleft is a double standard is like saying atheists are religious.
This wasn't a troll; it was an opinion, and a valid one. Some people do use non-GPL licenses.
I'm still waiting for the day when Stallman's fanboys stop abusing Slashdot's moderation system, by using it as a means of attempting to silence people they disagree with.
More like a person with heathy limbs of arms wouldn't rely so much on prosthetics.
Just because you strongly support a palliative, that's no reason not to cure the disease.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
The analogy isn't really correct. We're talking about "free" software, intended to be reused w/o monetary compensation. For the music analogy we'd have to be talking about closed source, commercial software being copied into another product.
Music performances and computer source code are also fundamentally different things. Again we'd need to change the analogy from recorded music performance to written sheet music to even begin to be equatable (the exception are "remix artists", but frankly they are more makers of sonic collage then musician).
That all can be reduced to ones and zeros does not make them all the same thing.
My
/me being new here and all.
FlashGot developer sez:
There's no components/SWVDService.js in their code, nor there is any mention of "flashgot" or "maone". We perhaps need a more up-to-date version of the claim.
And it'd be the Unix Wars all over again. And just like last time, there'll come a system that promises some degree of standardization, and everyone will jump ship to it while the old companies die along with their 'trade secrets'.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Obviously you can't make money by selling the application directly, but you can grant access to the service or sit on it and exploit the fact that you have a *tool* (i.e. a means to an end) that no-one else has.
I found that quote intriguing, maybe it is just a special case of Mexico but usually the way out-of-university Software Engineers do money is by developing POS or similar "tailormade" software for local shops.
Usually such developers sell the program including a service contract for some time after installation but not including the source. In the *very* rare case that the client asks for the source-code, usually he needs to pay an (significant) extra amount of money for it.
I think exactly that would happen if copyright was abolished... however I do not think that would be the norm. People who want to share code and create an "open society" will always exist. Take for example, BSD sharing code. There is people who provide their code with BSD license, and they don't care if someone else uses their code for commercial purpose!
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
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.
No, that it is licensed under the GPL license. (or if >=, then >=)
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.
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.
The original copyright statements must remain intact. (Term 1.)
An interesting commentary on the goals of the licenses and motivations of authors can be taken from this.
maybe that is a Firefox bug.
WTF are you talking about?? Please explain why it can not be both these unrelated things?
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.
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.
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.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Commit plagiarism and you'd best start looking for a new career.
Say I write a song, but then it turns out that a similar song had been published earlier. George Harrison wrote "My Sweet Lord" and lost a lawsuit because it turned out that he had accidentally copied "He's So Fine" written by Ronald Mack: Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music . How do I keep myself from plagiarizing on accident?
I wonder what the copyright abolitionist would say when copyright is abolished and the GPL stops to be enforceable...
I'm guessing "w00t!", but suspect that "yay!" may be a strong contender.
sigs are hazardous to your health
Not only that, but his little 'editorial' at the end of the summary strikes me as completely ludicrous. Unless this type of violation became the rule instead of the exception, why would good Free/Open Source Software developers stop contributing? I hardly see this sort of thing as being the rule.
When problems like this arise, they are identified, then dealt with, and everyone moves on (at least, that's been the pattern so far, from the various GPL violation stories I've seen over the past several years).
I hate it when people take one small case, then make some grand statement about what "all" people/developers/businesses/etc will do. The person who submitted this story to /. comes off looking like a fool, at least to me.
I just entered my own review at the Sotthink site. I don't think they'll be happy.
"You _have_ read the Slashdot entry about your plagiarism [cough theft cough], right? Do you plan to respond, to defend the accusations that you stole code? Or will we just conclude you're the thieving GPL violating SOBs you appear to be?"
I suppose they might even sue me.
[shrug]
Since my analogy seems to have been stretched the entirely wrong way, let me rephrase it:
If copyright didn't exist we wouldn't rely so much on the GPL? That's a bit like saying that a fish wouldn't rely so much on my email junk folder.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
"in a theoretical world without copyright, there would be no reason not to publish your source code - because you wouldn't be able to profit off of software sales in a world where anyone could legally copy your program for free"
Sounds great... right up until some enterprising programmer says "I won't release the code, therefore you can't modify it; but I can, and you can pay me to make such modifications if you need them."
Or uses DRM to continue profiting off of sales.
Or sells the use of the software rather than providing you a copy of it.
An information asymetry is an opportunity to profit. Copyright is only one tool in that workshop.
Who cares? It is just copyright infringement. Imaginary property and all that.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
If I burn copies of the movie to DVD, put it in a plastic case and sell it on the street, I'll include a cover label with that same information, and make sure potential buyers don't mistakenly believe it's really my film.... However, plagiarism is completely different, and if you plagiarize and profit from it, you're not going to get much sympathy.
That's so cute. You'll rip off movies and sell them for a profit with a clean conscience, but if someone copies *your* work and makes a buck then you're going to cry about it.
Oh, how I love Slashdot...
Why is it difficult for you to understand how someone could find plagiarism morally repugnant but not object to copyright infringement? Both are illegal, but they're totally different offenses. It has nothing to do with who created the work and who is using it inappropriately.
If you disagree with this position (obviously many do), that's fine. State your position, and explain why you feel that way.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I didn't say it would work for every application. On the other hand, unless they can figure out some way of still making money from games, the vast majority of the industry aren't going to bother. (And the fact remains that while there may be some decent free/open source games out there, they're not in the same ballpark as commercial ones).
Of course, the common sense approach here is one that's already in use; fairly heavyweight client, but the game still goes through the servers, a la WoW. They couldn't charge for the client at all, but they'd probably just increase the subscription price to make up for it.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Piracy and GPL violations both hurt workers in the field of computing/entertainment/etc. However, there's a big difference between a random Joe copying an mp3 and a corporate entity stealing a product and re-marketing it as their own.
Stating that there's a difference doesn't make it so. Case 1: person takes "data" and uses it, gives it to a few thousand of his closest friends. Case 2: person takes "data" and uses it, sells it to paying customers. In both cases, "data" wasn't supposed to be available for misuse due to copyright restrictions. In both case, the wishes of the owner and/or creator of that "data" were not respected by the people doing the taking.
Copyright is the double-edged sword in this case. It protects our right to GPL our source as much as it protects RIAA's right to claim ownership of an arrangement of pleasing sounds. Under the current system, you can't have one without the other - and getting offended by one abuse of copyrighted material without getting offended by the other is hypocritical. (I'm feeling pretty good about this one, as I'm offended by both abuses.)
On the other hand, unless they can figure out some way of still making money from games, the vast majority of the industry aren't going to bother.
Exactly. That's one reason why even the Mac still beats Linux on the home desktop.
[Without copyright in video games,] the common sense approach here is one that's already in use; fairly heavyweight client, but the game still goes through the servers, a la WoW.
It might work for PC games, but then there are two problems:
Here for one: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050225223848129
True but only to a point. If copyright were abolished, even the limited protection that GPL gives would go away. Companies would have no incentive to do anything but release binary products, knowing that to do otherwise would be to ensure that their present business model is not sustainable.
Yeah I don't think companies would have incentives to make free software. That would change. But people would still make free software...just voluntarily, or as a hobby.
We are talking about this specific instance.
In general, you are strictly correct. However, in this case, the source code is shipped with the release since plugins are source deliveries, therefore they are compliant.
Since they are shipping source code with their plugin, and the complainant themselves states that the files are unchanged, they again, are compliant. The advertising clauses in BSD 1.0 and the AFSL are very different, requiring the use of the software to be mentioned in any marketing materials. _THAT_ is an advertising clause.
There is no statement that their closed source plugin makes use of the GPL code. All we have so far is a developer complaining that their code was used without attribution. Something that the GPL does not require. It requires several things, but advertising where you got the code is not one of them.
The act of creating a running image of a software program is considered copying under current US statute and case law. This is why there is an argument around Linux closed-source drivers. If you talk to the FSF, they say that's a GPL violation. If you talk to Linus, he says that it's fine, with a specific exception to the GPL.
http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,39352584,00.htm
So, running software makes a copy, therefore is covered by the license. Since the license is the GPL, everything in the running image must also be GPLed. Congratulations you've just committed a copyright violation. This was covered in MAI Systems Corp. v Peak Computing. The law was later changed to cover copies made for maintenance. However, it still does not cover the violation made during execution.
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.
Save your editorializing until you have stats to back it up. My impression is that the people who take their ball and go home like you suggest aren't that great for the community anyway.
That's not the GPL being enforced, that is the derivative works protection of copyright law being enforced. Plenty of examples of that. All you can say about the GPL in that case is that it didn't *abridge* copyright protection.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I take out my imaginary hat and bow to you, sir. You just stated my own thoughts.
By the way, since they were mine, please add the appropriate credit : D
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
People will make server emulators, allowing the client to communicate with a separate shard detached from the official servers.
Doesn't really matter if essential and significant parts of the game logic are held on those servers and the interface is just a hollow shell. They'd essentially have to rewrite whole parts of the game.
As for the DS type games... you're right. But if people can't make money from them, then the majority of those games simply won't be made.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
For fuck's sake, anon. coward: "dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's ow" is called fraud, lying, not stealing, unless you are a moron (like the person who write that definition is).
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
But isn't the point about usefulness of Copyright itself, not the GPL?
If I'm not mistaken, the justification for Copyright is to protect the wishes of whoever make something.
If Copyright is abolished completely, only some (minority? of) people will still be motivated to produce whatsoever, given that their wishes match a reality where Copyright cannot be protected. The rest of the people may just decide that having their wishes disrespected is too much a hassle.
Among such wishes we could list:
- Making a living out of the inventions: disrespected when inventions are copied and hurts the inventor's income.
- Making fame out of the inventions: disrespected when inventions are copied and renamed so that the original inventor's name is replaced by another.
My ideal world is one where Copyright and things like the GPL exist together and where particularly restrictive Copyrights never last more than the inventor's life span, when whatever was copyrighted would fall into a state of GPL-ness or something alike: no more money owned, do whatever you like with it, but preserve the memory of the inventor.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13