Slashdot Mirror
Court Case To Test GNU GPL
ciaran_o_riordan writes "Tomorrow, a German court will hear the case of AVM, a distributor of Linux-based routers, which seeks to block Cybits from distributing software that modifies the routers' software to add content-filtering functionality. Free Software Foundation Europe explains: 'AVM justified its position using three arguments. First, they stated that their whole product software must be regarded as an entity under AVM copyright, and that this entity must not be modified. The position Mr. Welte [founder of gpl-violations.org and copyright holder of several parts of the Linux kernel] took was that the whole product software would in that case be a derivative work according to the GPL, and thus the whole product software should be licensed under the GNU GPL. AVM then switched to a second argument: that the software embedded on its DSL terminals consisted of several parts. According to Mr. Welte, AVM could then not prohibit anyone from modifying or distributing the GPL licensed software parts. The final argument by AVM was that the software on their DSL terminals is a composition of several different programs, which, due to the creative process, would be a protected compilation and thus under the copyright of AVM and not affected by the copyleft of the GPL.'"
I've been making my software GPLd since 1991. If someone uses it, for free, and makes a derived work, and then tries to stop others from sharing that work, they are ethically and intellectually challenged.
This is not a test case for the GPL, it's a straight-forward copyright violation case, where AVM is taking the work of tens of thousands of people, using it under a license that permits remixing, and then attempting to ignore those license conditions.
Take them to the cleaners, Harald!
My blog
I think he's half right. Either the company is intelligent yet ethically challenged, in that they know that they are violating the GPL yet do not care, or they are ethically sound but intellectually challenged, in that they don't know they're controverting the license. I believe one of these scenarios is the case.
1. This violates the GPL over the GPL-licensed parts of the whole, and therefore the GPL-licensed parts have to be excluded when the whole is distributed. The same reasoning applies if the restriction is due to a compilation copyright over the whole or a license regarding use that prohibits modification.
2. Irrelevant: the GPL parts continue to be licensed under the GPL or they can not be redistributed. The GPL permission for compilations does not weaken the GPL license for GPL components so compiled.
3. All a compilation copyright means is that no one else can redistribute the compilation. However, it can not restrict redistribution of the GPL licensed parts.
About the only case that can be made is that modified routers can't be sold, but routers could be sold along with the means to modify them. Or a router could be sold, and someone hired to modify it.
Of course, I am not a lawyer, and would welcome one correcting any error I made above.
In Liberty, Rene
Why? There's one on the side of the bad guys, and there's on on the side being bullied, and there's one more on the side protecting our rights.
Seems like 2 out of 3 of the lawyers (or teams of them) are fighting for the cause of the good guys, or fighting against the bad guys at least.
*ANY* copyrighted work derivative must comply with the expectations and terms of the original copyright holder. How, exactly, is using the GPL any different from this?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Ironically, by preventing others from enacting the rights granted by the GNU GPL, AVM itself is in violation of the license terms. Therefore they have no right to distribute the software" says Till Jaeger.
In addition, a compilation is a derived work and the author needs to secure the copyrights to the parts. Of course, often a compilation is made from parts that have lost their copyright status, or are to small to be considered a work, but that does not mean that creating a compilation magically waives the rights of the creators of the parts.
IANAL, and also not yours.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
Because the "features" may, in fact, introduce bugs, for which the customer may try to hold AVM responsible.
But, that is a warranty issue, and easily addressed.
In Liberty, Rene
This doesn't even make sense without the GPL. Even if AVM owned the copyright to all code, it doesn't by itself prevent users from adding new code in place. It's as if the author of a book sued to prevent purchasers from the writing in the margins of their own copy.
Unless German copyright law is very different from US law, there must be a clause in the license that TFA fails to mention. This clause presumably disallows consumers from making modifications to the software. Since the GPL is involved, this license could only apply to the code owned entirely by AVM that is not part of a larger GPL unit.
It amazes me that companies feel justified in not paying for their software. The GPL's payment is in openness and code changes. So many companies try this (and get away with it). It would be similar to companies using cracked warze and then trying to justify it in court as their own works.
Of all these, I think the compilation argument is an interesting one and merits watching. It could have interesting results on other things based on open licenses such as Linux distributions and other devices based on Linux.
I don't think I will roll out a complete comment on this just now. I will instead ponder the notion of thinking of all these computer programs as components and calling this a compilation which is "protected."
There are many things that cause this to fall apart such as the individual licenses of the components themselves and the distribution rights associated with them. But, it's the end of my day and I want to go home...
I think the case hinges on the right to sue of the parties.
A contributor to the GPL'ed software would have the right to sue.
The defendant, Mr. Welte, might not have the right to sue AVM to put their code under the GPL, but luckily he is the defendant.
AVM is the plaintiff. They have admitted that their released work is a mix of their original work and GPL'ed work. In my opinion they still may assert their copyright for their contributions, but do not actually have the right to distribute their work.
That is why I think the defendants primary cause, although I'm sympathetic to the defendant, is lost.
However as a countermove, (I'm assuming the defendant owns an AVM router), I suggest he countersues AVM for damages, since they set him up with a router that cannot be operated legally since they don't own the rights to the software, and for wasting his time he spent coding in good faith that AVM actually intends to secure the rights to the software, which is hard to do without GPL'ing the software.
IANAL, and not yours.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
How is this restrictions on information? Cybits wants to distribute altered parts of the dsl software and AVM wants to restrict this and is named as a gpl violater here so that is the party that wants to restrict.
The down-modding on the parent comment is incorrect. It's a valid comment. I hate mismodding like this on Slashdot which silences legitimate dissent.
However, people on slashdot are not universally pro-pirate.
* Many are for more reasonable copyright laws (14/28 years).
* Many don't view it as a lost sale if the person couldn't afford to purchase the product in the first place. (Yes it is piracy- but with no real damage to the creator. Less damage than libraries (which are legal) in fact.
* Many (I) am opposed to the corporate abuse of copyright law ( Seriously-- Happy Birthday, To You-- STILL UNDER COPYRIGHT???)
With regard to this article, they are generally against hypocrites who infringe the work of others who donated free materials to the community and then try to claim copyright protection on the infringed copyrighted works.
If a commercial business wants- it can right its own router code. Oh wait- that's REAL expensive. So comply with the GPL terms- sell your hardware and be happy.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Perhaps you should work on that.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Could we stop saying "test the GPL"? If the GPL does not hold, then copyrights and contracts don't hold. You can't kill the GPL without killing more onerous EULAs, and as we all know, that will never happen.
This is not a test of the GPL! It's simply a test of copyright law, and, in particular, the boundaries of the definition of "derivative work".
If I were an author, and gave a publisher permission to publish a story I wrote, unmodified, they would be free to publish it in a collection with other stories by other authors, but not free to modify huge chunks of it. But, what if they got another author to write stuff that was inserted between key paragraphs of my story? My story is unmodified, in the sense that every word appears unchanged and in the correct order, but the result is still clearly not my story. So, the issue is: where is the boundary between compilation and derivative? The question here is not "are they violating the GPL?", but "are they violating copyright law?"
They're on the side of whoever has the money to pay them (most of the time), and I'm willing to bet those are not the good guys.
A more clear summary than the long-winded summary up top is this:
Company A makes a widget based on GPL code.
Company B makes code that you can buy and run on the widget, changing it's function
Company A is suing company B to stop them claiming copyright violation
There are multiple weird things about this case that I am very unclear on.
- Does company B's distributed code even contain any code from Company A? If it doesn't, and it is literally just code that gets injected into the router, then it is not a copyright violation in the first place. Not a GPL issue *at all*.
- If it *does* contain code from company A, based on their GPL code, then it's a GPL issue. However, none of Company A's arguments make any sense in that case.
- Finally, why does company A care about this in the least?
If it ever seems like the entire world is against you, take that for truth, and realize that you engender ill will in others. There is no collusion, you're obviously deranged, and everyone will continue to reject you. Every man is the hero of his own story, ay, but you make yourself a villain by attacking others, even as you claim to be attacked.
You're sick, man. These are not the actions of a sane adult. You need serious mental help. I can't imagine you'll listen to this -- none so deaf as he who will not hear.
The cognitive dissonance between this story and the countless (pro-)piracy stories is astounding.
Only if you fail at logic. The pro-Free-Software stance is "it's good to share, and to those ends, we're going to share our stuff with you (as long as you share it with others in turn)." Given that "sharing is good" is a bedrock principle of that opinion, it's unsurprising that a somewhat overlapping set of people also believes that it's OK to share other things.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Yes, they have copyrights on the compilation. But they have to respect the rights of the Linux copyright holders, and those rights say "you can only distribute the software under these conditions".
So, if they want to distribute, they have to allow modification. If they don't allow modification, they can enjoy their own copyright in the privacy of their own home, but they can't distribute the compilation without violating someone else's copyright.
The final argument by AVM was that the software on their DSL terminals is a composition of several different programs, which, due to the creative process, would be a protected compilation and thus under the copyright of AVM and not affected by the copyleft of the GPL.
Which means they're back to a derivative work ;-)
They seem to be confusing the GPL with the BSD license or the public domain. If they ignore the GPL, nothing else lets them use the GPL-licensed code, so they have to take it out. Schnell!
Most of the ones on the good side would be equally happy being paid to work for the other side.
Not exactly immoral, but more often than not amoral.
(which is generally their job: to ensure that things are legally correct by some technical definition of legal irrespective of wishy-washy complications like morality)
The saddest part is, I knew it was APK as soon as I saw the formatting. No need to actually read the post.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The FSF refused to review my code and issue me a "certificate of no GPL code."
The FSF is not the only group that writes GPL code.
Bow-ties are cool.
No. I've come across your argument or a variant of it every time I point out the above.
The problem is that even if an organization is pro-sharing, the way the GPL accomplishes that is by putting *restrictions* on what you can do with the information/software/etc. that they produce and release. If the pro-sharing groups believe it's okay for their group to restrict how someone uses their information by requiring distribution of source for derivative works (i.e. copyleft/GPL), they *have* to be okay with a different group restricting how someone uses their information by prohibiting redistribution or derivative works entirely without licensing/royalties (i.e. traditional copyright). They are all restrictions.
Now you might argue that one set of restrictions (copyleft/GPL) is better than another (copyright), or that copyleft/GPL would be unnecessary if there were no such thing as copyright in the first place.
To the first point, I will ask
To the second point I will argue that without copyright, everything looks like a BSD license or public - that is, a "here's the code, do whatever you want with it" license - so why don't people just use the BSD license? It's precisely because the authors of GPL software want to put restrictions on how people use their stuff.
Addressing the first point is another gigantic discussion, but the quick version goes something like this: if you don't pay people to do stuff, it won't get done once people have to start doing other things to pay the bills.
More likely, the features means the router competes with more expensive products.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
1. They want to provide a device which does this, and the software competes. There are several FritzBoxes which fill different niches, and AVM occasionally bring out new ones with specific features. They are actually quite cool little Linux boxes, lots of hacks for them.
2. Support costs.
Deleted
Thanks, I didn't know that.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
Thanks, I didn't figure that out from the summary.
I still think he cannot force them to release their code under the GPL. They can just say "no", and then he has the right to sue them and will win, making them pay damages and making them stop distributing their product.
Of course, the threat of this might convince them, as it usually does in GPL cases.
IANAL, and not yours.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
What he is getting at is Copy Left is an illusion, it doesn't actually exist. It is wholly depended on the existence of Copy Right.
... if you want the damn code proprietary, then write the damn thing yourself. Why is this so hard to understand? People that whine about "Well, I wrote part X as a modification of GPL project Y, so why am I forced to use GPL on X!" The answer is simple, because you based your work on GPL! If you don't want to use GPL, then avoid GPL!
Yes, the issue can be made much more complex. But at the end of the day, this "problem" hasn't changed, and it's not that complicated. Microsoft figured it out and they also release some GPL code, yet nobody is going after the Windows codebase, now are they? NOT... THAT... HARD...
I8-D
I more or less agree with everything you've said but your original comment was a bit ambiguous. I read your comment talking more to the fact that Copy Left isn't real and it is just being creative with Copy Right.
If the pro-sharing groups believe it's okay for their group to restrict how someone uses their information by requiring distribution of source for derivative works (i.e. copyleft/GPL), they *have* to be okay with a different group restricting how someone uses their information by prohibiting redistribution or derivative works entirely without licensing/royalties (i.e. traditional copyright).
No they don't. If people believe that information should be shared, it's perfectly consistent to support uses of copyright law that require sharing, while opposing uses of copyright law that don't require sharing.
With open source code as pervasive as it is it's all to easy for a coder at a company to cheat and plagiarize. Maybe even sabotage his own company. Courts would need to look at the amount of code involved and determine if the company in question had reasonable knowledge of infringement. Damage? The answer is we need a clear decision as far as disclosure from companies when something like this happens. More or less depending upon the amount of code in question they must be forced for reply to a cease and desist letter and as quickly as possible and stop using infringing code as reasonably as possible. Failure to comply resulting in liability for actual damages to the tune of an estimate determined by the court for what it would cost to redevelop the code plus punitive damages..
As far as the GPL itself we have the static vs dynamic vs bundling issues. It's all just philosophical when we talk about software. To over-simply, linking is all just a concept controlled by compiler flags. At the end of the day we are only talking about how the bits are ordered on media. And for files on the internet you don't even have media. I think it would be all too easy for the courts to decide it's not clear and in effect rule the GPL to effectively become LGPL. I'm not even positive one could even write a legal definition of static vs dynamic linking except by abandoning the concepts for more concrete ones. I actually really want to see it go before SCOTUS and have lawyers try to explain pointers and addresses when they don't even understand it themselves. Then define execution. You will literally need to give them honorary degrees in "Computer Science" after the case.
To the second point I will argue that without copyright, everything looks like a BSD license or public - that is, a "here's the code, do whatever you want with it" license - so why don't people just use the BSD license? It's precisely because the authors of GPL software want to put restrictions on how people use their stuff.
That's true, but only in a very narrow sense. BSD is "freer" (less restrictions), but I believe it's more open to abuse - specifically, the kinds of abuse you see when people try to cheat around the GPL. Specifically, these cases where companies take the free code, stuff it in a box, tweak a line or two and magically lock it back down again. The reason I prefer GPL to BSD is simple - just because *I* don't want to make money from my code doesn't mean I'm OK with *you* making money from my code. GPL says "I'm giving this to you for free, because I'm nice - all I ask is that you do the same". It doesn't even prevent you from paying me for a "full rights" version that you can tweak and lock down. But if you don't want to pay for it, you can't make others pay for it.
If people believe that information should be shared, it's perfectly consistent to support uses of copyright law that require sharing, while opposing uses of copyright law that don't require sharing.
If people believe that information must be shared, as the GPL requires, then they implicitly believe that information should be allowed to be restricted in how its used. You can't require sharing without also requiring restriction. Why is the must-share restriction better than the don't-share restriction? That's the inconsistency.
You're just arguing that sharing is better than not sharing. That's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but it's also a completely different discussion. Consistency in copyright enforcement (or lack thereof) was the point of my original post.
I still think he cannot force them to release their code under the GPL. They can just say "no", and then he has the right to sue them and will win, making them pay damages and making them stop distributing their product.
I think the logic is thusly:
The gadget is either using GPLed code under a valid license (which means they can't prevent others from modifying it, thus they lose), or they are not using it under a valid license (which means that they're vulnerable to infringement claims themselves, and depending on exactly which bits were being modified, they might not have standing to protest in the first place).
I still think he cannot force them to release their code under the GPL. They can just say "no", and then he has the right to sue them and will win, making them pay damages and making them stop distributing their product.
It is an interesting situation. Mr. Welte cannot force AVM to do something, but he can quite clearly tell them "if you do what you intend to do then you are committing copyright infringement" with the consequence that AVM might be in for some serious consequences.
Actually, I think at this point AVM has already been distributing the software in violation of the GPL terms. So the GPL license doesn't apply here anymore. So the fact is: AVM took some copyrighted code that they have no right to distribute, modified and hopefully improved it, distributed it, and claim to have rights in the resulting code. So what legal rights, if any, do they have in the code? How would the situation be different if the copyrighted code was some code stolen from Microsoft, or some code they could legally distribute after paying a million dollars which they didn't?
It would be reasonable to say in my opinion that the third party, Cybits here, should have the same rights as if AVM had acted in a way that didn't involve copyright infringement. So in the case of GPL'd software, Cybits should stand as if AVM hadn't breached the GPL license. If AVM had stolen Microsoft code, then Cybits should stand as if AVM hadn't stolen the code, so there would be no router software that Cybits could modify.
You're thinking too black and white. Consider copyright violation as broadly belonging to three classes. The first, perhaps we can call "surprise sharing". That's the pirate bay sort of thing, you download a copy for your own use. Or you take a CD to a friends house and install the game on their machine, plus a no-cd crack. So, some on Slashdot might think that's perfectly OK, and some might say "Well, that's not OK but it's not a serious case of copyright violation". Both of those groups object to the multi-million dollar judgments against these people. The second case we can call actual piracy, the way the word has been used for centuries by authors and playwrights: This is when you are making unauthorized copies/editions and selling them without paying royalties. So that's when you have a guy selling burnt copies of movies and music on the street corner for $10 a pop. That's when you have music labels publishing compilation albums without paying for permission to do so. It's not hypocrisy to consider this case to be worse than the first. In one case, you are "sharing", even though perhaps that's not the right thing to be doing. And certainly P2P is much more large-scale than taking a CD to a friend's house so you might also make a distinction there. But certainly profiting off it is worse than non-profit sharing, even if neither situation is very desirable from the authors point of view? I mentioned three classes. The third is, in my opinion, the worst. This is when instead of writing your own program, you take source code from somebody else's, and you just strip their name off and put your own. Maybe you change it, maybe you don't. Either way, it's not just copyright violation (possibly/probably for profit), it's also plagiarism. GPL violations fall into the last two cases, typically. You have somebody who's selling software that uses the GPL, but they're not following the license, or you have somebody selling software that secretly uses GPL'd software, but they've stripped all the identifications out. I assert that there's no cognitive dissonance involved in saying that either case is worse than sharing games on TPB. Now, if you're saying that torrenting is A-OK but GPL violations are very bad, well, then that's a bit of hypocrisy I'd agree. But I think you'll find that a lot of the "pro" piracy posts are not so much saying "Pirated copies want to be free" as they are "Isn't a million or $200,000 or whatever a bit steep?" Especially when companies who are doing number two or number three aren't even getting fines that big. It's certainly reasonable to say "I don't think the fine should be so large for no-charge piracy" and also say "I think the GPL should be enforced". Especially since they're typically asking for the code to be shared, not for billion dollar fines.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
According to the article, the defendent is not distributing code containing GPL code. Rather, they are distributing a program that reads from a DSL router and modifies the (perfectly legal) GPL code on the router, reinstalling the modified code. The defendent doesn't think this is a violation, since he does not distribute any GPL code to users, only the binary "diffs". The modified code is never "distributed", only installed on the individuals own router. Since the GPL limits distribution, but doesn't affect "internal" use, there is an argument that the GPL is not violated. However, there is a further section in the GPL that takes up just this point, which is quite orthogonal to any of the arguments posted here. Even if this section of the GPL was not enforced in Germany, it wouldn't be the end of the GPL, as this is an extremely inconvinient way to distribute software, and the liklihood that the "diffs" didn't include GPL code is very small.
Because AVM sells other products, at a higher price/profit, which contain those additional features. They want to protect their revenue stream.
The Master (Angelo Rossitto) in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, "Not shit, energy!"
Well no... that's kind of missing the point as well. The GPL places absolutely no restrictions on somebody charging for a product that includes GPL code. Just because you don't want to get paid doesn't mean I'm not allowed to use your GPL code in something I build and get paid for. What the GPL does do is require me to release the code that I modified. In essence this would prevent me from making a business selling GPL'd software on its own (since it's freely available anyhow), but it *should* encourage me to use your GPL'd code as a component of something else that I'm selling. On top of that, if I need to adapt your code to work in my project, any of those changes will be available back to the community. Most successful GPL projects have money involved one way or another - whether through support or sales of a larger package (hardware, software, whatever).
+1 Disagree
The GPL requires Copyright to be enforceable. We all know this.
PS I think you'd find if you looked that those pushing for pro-privacy are not the same users pushing the GPL's enforceability. They're both geek topics, but they don't necessarily overlap as much as you assume.
I'm pro-Copyright within limits (125 years is stupid) and I believe authors should be compensated if that is their desire.
I buy my games and movies when I don't rent, and I use Netflix, not Youtube to watch shows online.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
They're fighting tooth and nail PROBABLY because their code is statically bind to some pieces of GPL code somewhere, and they can't extricate their code without POSSIBLY requiring a full rewrite, an expense they're unwilling to endure. That and it's always bad for business to admit having willfully violated licensing terms.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
I may be willing to live by their rules, but probably not in the way they think I will. My stance on software piracy is similarly "buy it or use open source." If they whine at me about open source not being good enough, I tell them that's what they're paying for then. If you don't want to live by the rules and you get burned, I really have no sympathy.
I've also started making little bits of software available, since Github makes it so easy. I have about as much sympathy for a corporation that wants to pirate from me as I do for a person who wants to pirate from a corporation. The corporations pretty much made these rules what they are today, so it's always funny to watch one trying to weasel out of having to abide by them.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
True, you can charge for GPLed code. But as you note, you're usually really paying for hardware or support since you can't differentiate on the software.
You take the meaning of "restrictions" to contradictory extremes. You might as well say that because you aren't allowed to enslave, imprison, or kill another person, you are being restricted. You are also restricted from leaping a tall building in a single bound, or violating the laws of thermodynamics, or any of infinitely many other acts that are impossible. How can anyone who is in favor of freedom not be in favor of allowing you the freedom to enslave someone? A similar argument was commonly used by the pro slavery faction prior to the US Civil War, whenever a new state was being admitted and they had to decide whether it was to be a slave state or a free state. The pro slavery side disingenuously held that a slave owner ought to have the right to bring slaves with him to free states without them being freed. The owner could even go so far as to demand that the state exert itself to maintain this "freedom", for instance by hunting down, capturing, and returning runaways. If the free states had accepted such arguments, they would have effectively become slave states, as the pro slavery side knew full well.
It also seems you are trying to make us out as a bunch of hypocrites. Your arguments are weak, as you should realize. You're playing word games. Is it truly restriction to restrict what restrictions others may impose? Such wording is not a good way to capture the concept. It ignores the complementary and opposing nature of such rules. That which is a restriction to one so that another may enjoy the complementary freedom, and so that both are equal in the eyes of the law, should not be thought of as only a restriction, because it is more. It's like the old saw about whether half a glass of water should be considered half empty or half full.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Even though I do think copyright itself is a good idea, I often find myself on the "pirate side" of the debate because the content industry is abusing copyright:
*1: I don't think those are the only two options but it's important to realize that copyright enforcement at all costs would lead us to a very undesirable society.
*2: There is progress being made here. Nowadays I can buy most music as files without DRM for acceptable prices, although I would like to see more competition (why does Amazon sell songs in fewer EU countries than Apple?). DVD boxes of TV series are now priced at levels where you can consider buying them even if you're going to watch them just once or twice. Streaming video is still hopeless though, nothing like Hulu here yet. Things like football (soccer) matches are available for paid live streaming now, but at 6 euros a match I'm not going to order it unless I want to see that match really bad. Since ad-supported matches on TV can be profitable, then either my semi-attention for ~15 minutes of ads is worth 6 euros or the streaming price is not based costs.
Many articles about copyright are about copyright abuses. I could post every time that while I am against copyright abuse I do think copyright in general should be respected, but like Greyfox said, I don't have the energy for it.
...or any of infinitely many other acts that are impossible.
I don't think I need to address this, as your examples are clearly outside of the realm of this discussion. I am having a discussion about restrictions that a creator imposes on a piece of IP that he or she has created. I don't know what point you're trying to make with your examples.
It also seems you are trying to make us out as a bunch of hypocrites.
Yes, that is exactly what I am trying to do.
Your arguments are weak, as you should realize. You're playing word games.
I'm not playing word games.
Is it truly restriction to restrict what restrictions others may impose?
Yes.
Such wording is not a good way to capture the concept. It ignores the complementary and opposing nature of such rules. That which is a restriction to one so that another may enjoy the complementary freedom, and so that both are equal in the eyes of the law, should not be thought of as only a restriction, because it is more.
No. Just like the converse of a proof is not necessarily true, the converse of "restriction of a restriction" is not a freedom. The GPL restricts what a user can do with the software. He cannot take the software, make a modification to or a derivative work from it - potentially adding value - and protect that added value from being copied by competitors. Instead, he must release the new version to the world. Or not use the GPL software in the first place.
Look, my entire point is that the GPL requires copyright enforcement. Without copyright, the GPL is invalid and anyone can take the software someone has released, change it, and sell it.
As I've stated at least two other times in this thread, if you want to argue that the GPL's restriction ("you must share") is better than traditional copyright restrictions ("you must not share"), we can have that discussion. But that's a totally different discussion.
Let me use a couple examples to illustrate my point again.
A consistent position for someone to take on this issue is that they believe that both software and music should be in the public domain immediately upon distribution of the first copy. Many people on Slashdot have suggested that such a system is workable (monetarily, for the creator) if the software author/musician were paid before creating the work, on a commission.
Another consistent position is that both software and music should become public domain after, say, 4 years, but prior to 4 years they are allowed to be subject to whatever license or restrictions the author decides - such restrictions being "you must share", or "you must not share".
The position in question is: software should be subject to a restriction such as "you must share", but music is public domain. I don't understand why you think this is a consistent position. Please explain.
Another example. This clearly illustrates why the GPL is a legitimate restriction, and not a freedom.
A band writes and records a song. They release the song for free under the GPL. Ten years later, another band wants to cover that song. Their cover is a huge hit, but they are required to release their cover of the song for free due to restrictions in the GPL. They cannot profit from their added value because the GPL restricted them from doing so.
There are many more nuances here (live performances, the original band may gain in popularity, etc.), but I think that's a pretty good example.
The summary is unclear about a number of things, and the article is not so clear either.
Say one company takes a stock linux distribution (or makes a tiny distro of GPL/Linux parts) and then adds a special binary that does things like phone-home calculate a IPSec key, and then wake up a VPN using that key. This company is on the hook to distribute all the GPL/Linux bits as source but _not_ the key generating program that is "merely" on the same media. The program could also be, perhaps, a web interface for the device running as scripts or binaries or whatever. As long as the program's in question do no link with (in the software linking loader sense) the GPL bits there is no "taint of GPL" to the added code. (This was the old "the GPL is infectious like a virus argument, which people finally understood as "no its not" 8-).
Lets say some other company then makes a mod-kit for the device above and either (a) distributes the kit and/or (b) buys up the devices, applies the kit, and re-sells it.
The second company has no rights to the binary of the first company, but since the first company sold the device in question to either an end user (in case a) or to the second company (in case b), the second company is clear of copyright issues. e.g. they are not making copies of the binary. The first company is not, however, in a position to dispute the second company's action since it isn't making copies of their software, so the second company has no basis to block the second companies actions.
If the first company's software is linked with the GPL bits (e.g. actually in the kernel, or a modification of the IPSec programs in our example) (and not LGPL bits, but full GPL bits) then the first company has three choices: (1) distribute the source with the binary in a common and accessible format (e.g. CDROM, thumb drive, etc) of (2) agree to make the code available to the recipients of the binary for a minimum period of time, put that in writing, and maybe charge a copying fee or not. If they don't do one of those two things then they are NOT ALLOWED to distribute the resulting program. In both cases the recipient of the source is not under any obligation _NOT_ _TO_ just give the source to everybody at _their_ discretion and expense. That is, company one can safely limit its exposure to follow-on distribution costs by only having to distribute the code to the people who got the binary from them, but they can NOT require that the code they give out is not to be copied on by the recipient.
In the case above the first company is trying to stop the second company from doing things. First they said "that is one whole system and it's our 'property' so you cannot mess with it." and the second company said "if its all one system then that system is GPLd and we can quite explicitly do any thing we like with it _OR_ you had no right to sell or even give it away in the first place and you are in deep trouble."
So then the first company said "wait a sec, we mis-spoke. There is all the GPL bits and then there is our program. Our program is ours so you cannot mess with the device." and the second company went on to say "We can mess with the device and all the GPL bits all we want because you sold the device and the GPL bits are GPL. You bits are irrelevant to what we are doing so leave us alone."
So _now_ the company is trying the "well yea, we did sell the device, and you can mess with GPL bits all you like, but when we put our bits in with the GPL bits we were making an artistic statement a whole and when you mess with the GPL bits you are wrecking our artistic vision."
The third argument is tricky in that its as if the first company went out and got three peices of music under the GPL and added a fourth that they want to license under different terms. A guy comes in and messes with one or more of the first three, by perhaps substituting in a "dance re-mix" of the the third song. Now the first company says "the second company is messing up our presentation of these for songs as a whole by tweaking
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Easy now - remember, it is just 95% of Lawyers, that gives the rest of them a bad reputation.
I don't know what your issue is with Tom Hudson, and I don't want to know, but you're insane, man. Get some help.
If you can't work this out in a private manner, just drop it. There's no need to behave like an ass in public.
Why would anyone mod this up? It's completely off-topic, with no redeeming value that I can tell.
You make a good point, though. Instead of posting, I should have modded all of this down.Too late now, I'm afraid.
And without the GPL, they would have been unable to cover the track FOR FREE
THe GPL is an enabler; it grants you rights you do not normally have under copyright, in return for you agreeing to perform certain actions. Yes, these actions are restrictions on your behaviour - but they are also actions you could not normally have taken. So you have net gained.
Which is why it's legally valid. It twists something that restricts sharing into something that encourages sharing.
However, people on slashdot are not universally pro-pirate.
* Many are for more reasonable copyright laws (14/28 years).
* Many don't view it as a lost sale if the person couldn't afford to purchase the product in the first place. (Yes it is piracy- but with no real damage to the creator. Less damage than libraries (which are legal) in fact..
There is one huge difference between this case and "piracy". Here, money is involved. AVM sells other people's code for money in a way that violates the license. They're nor merely breaking the law, they're trying to profit from it. And that is, in my opinion, what makes this criminal.
Because it is your legal responsibility to undertake such reviews yourself. Not the FSF
The problem is that even if an organization is pro-sharing, the way the GPL accomplishes that is by putting *restrictions* on what you can do with the information/software/etc. that they produce and release. If the pro-sharing groups believe it's okay for their group to restrict how someone uses their information by requiring distribution of source for derivative works (i.e. copyleft/GPL), they *have* to be okay with a different group restricting how someone uses their information by prohibiting redistribution or derivative works entirely without licensing/royalties (i.e. traditional copyright). They are all restrictions.
This is a non-sequitur, and in fact, completely false. From the pro-sharing viewpoint, sharing is good, not sharing is bad. If you sell modified GPL code, you have to share the source code. Yes, it is a restriction that forces you to share, but from a pro-sharing viewpoint, it's a good restriction, because it forces people to share. But sharing copyrighted works is also good from a pro-sharing viewpoint, simply because it's sharing.
Pro-sharing is neither the same nor the opposite as pro-copyright. It's orthogonal to it. It's how someone who's against killing can be both against murder, and against the execution of murderers, whereas your point sounds like: "if you support the law that makes murder illegal, you also have to support the law that gives murderers the death penalty." (I admit murder is rather an extreme comparison, but it does make the orthogonality of the issues at hand clear.)
If people believe that information should be shared, it's perfectly consistent to support uses of copyright law that require sharing, while opposing uses of copyright law that don't require sharing.
If people believe that information must be shared, as the GPL requires, then they implicitly believe that information should be allowed to be restricted in how its used. You can't require sharing without also requiring restriction. Why is the must-share restriction better than the don't-share restriction? That's the inconsistency.
You're just arguing that sharing is better than not sharing. That's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but it's also a completely different discussion. Consistency in copyright enforcement (or lack thereof) was the point of my original post.
The bold part is exactly the entire point of the pro-sharing position. If it didn't believe that sharing is better than not sharing, then the hell does it mean if someone believes that information should be shared? Your original post actually suggested that this was not a legitimate point to make, and now you're trying to force pro-sharers into a different standpoint than their own.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anything, I'm just pointing out that it's entirely legitimate for a pro-sharer to be neither completely pro-copyright nor completely anti-copyright. Copyright can be considered good when it helps sharing, and bad when it hurts sharing. Copyright does both.
1. They want to provide a device which does this, and the software competes. There are several FritzBoxes which fill different niches, and AVM occasionally bring out new ones with specific features. They are actually quite cool little Linux boxes, lots of hacks for them.
Are FritzBoxes from AVM? And there's hacks and third-party software for them? I need to check that out. I have a FritzBox, but never really looked into any of that.
"However, there is a further section in the GPL that takes up just this point, which is quite orthogonal to any..."
Right that's it. Shut your mouth. If you use that word one more time I swear I'll... Orthogonal!? You pretentious wally.
How about "It challenges..." or "It answers this point..." or "It undermines this point..." or some other use of English which is not daft as a brush.
Orthogonal doesn't mean any of those things. Orthogonal means it's on a totally different axis. Like a x-axis is orthogonal to the y-axis. Or freedomauthoritarian is orthogonal to economically leftright. And if you mean to say something like that, "orthogonal" is a perfectly valid word to use for it.
I have no idea what feenberg (the GP) is talking about or whether he's using the word correctly, but elsewhere in this discussion, I've used the word orthogonal to say that being pro-sharing of code doesn't have to mean you're specifically pro- or anti-copyright. That's a perfectly valid way to use the word.
We all seem to have problems with this guy. The very moment you see his posts, I suggest we not respond to his commentary but simply answer something along the lines of "APK detected -- emotionally and/or mentally unstable -- hostile" and say no more. I foolishly had interaction twice.
But the form of payment is openness. And given that the GPL want anyone to profit from it, there is no single entity that has suffered monetary damages. So payment can only be openness.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Wow... just... wow. Google that name and you will see a lengthy history of this guys interactions with others. In all those years, you would think that he would have learned from his mistakes along the way as his internet trail indicates that he makes the same mistakes over and over and over again. Anger, impatience, unreasonable demands and, of course, takes "simple business interactions" far too personally.
"I have been published" is his least relevant claim and yet he seems to claim it at every available opportunity. The subject is demonstrably obsessive, aggressive but I have yet to see or hear of the subject actually following through on veiled threats of legal action.
Interestingly, there was certain other discussion on slashdot which put forward the idea that "reason is a weapon" where winning is more important than being right. This characteristic is clearly displayed by the subject. The sooner all of slashdot recognizes the subject for what he is, we can begin to file him away with the "goatse.cx" and "rick rolling" we frequently see here.
If you really want to spend your time annoying people, by all means go for it. Just don't expect any sympathy. I have nothing to do with this vendetta you're pursuing, and neither have the vast majority of slashdot users. We would really appreciate it if you were to go fight your private war somewhere else.
Read my original post again. It is clearly targeted at "information wants to be free" fanatics. They come out in droves on the piracy stories saying that once a musician releases a song, the information is "out there" and can't be locked down, and thus it should be able to be freely passed around. The GPL does not allow this with software either, as much as you or anyone else can argue that it does. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_licences#Restrictions if you still disagree with me.
I have written a ton of other posts arguing against the "pro-sharers" because I don't think that method works either. Here is a decent one that summarizes my views there: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1654748&cid=32246514
APK detected -- emotionally and/or mentally unstable -- hostile
I don't see ridiculous swathes of off-topic crap being posted in this thread by them. I do see you posting that. The only thing I'm doing is judging you by your actions. If this is what your request for a truce looks like, I'd rather you stopped requesting a truce.
the converse of "restriction of a restriction" is not a freedom
That is not the argument I'm making. There are genuine restrictions that forbid something to everyone. If no one is allowed to, say, be on a particular mountain, that's a real restriction. There may or may not be good reason for it, but whatever the case with that, the restriction is truly a restriction. Then there are things that are both a restriction and a freedom, and you are seeing only the restriction part. And you ARE playing word games to try to force that viewpoint. It's like the parable of the blind men and an elephant, but you keep on insisting it is only the part you have touched. And think again about the "freedom" to enslave people. Such a freedom cannot be applied equally to everyone because the first person to use it takes it away from someone else.
my entire point is that the GPL requires copyright enforcement. Without copyright, the GPL is invalid
Moot point. Yes, the GPL needs copyright to work. But without copyright, the GPL is unnecessary. Without copyright, entities could not copy publicly available software and "protect" it by slapping a copyright on it, and then take our work away from us by suing everyone for copyright infringement! That's the sort of thing the GPL is designed to stop. The essence of the GPL is that you shall not forbid the sharing of what was shared with you. And you shall not forbid sharing in a backhanded way either, by making an improvement that makes the original impractical, and then refusing to let anyone else have or make that same improvement, all while claiming that you are not stopping anyone from sharing, because the original is still available. The genius of the GPL is that for so long as there is copyright and the ability to abuse it to steal works from the public, there is copyleft. Every move that strengthens copyright also strengthens copyleft.
and anyone can take the software someone has released, change it, and sell it.
You can do all that right now, with software released under the GPL. The GPL explicitly allows sales. All that is required is that you convey the changes to the public.
You also seem to be unaware that in fact the GPL does NOT require that you share your changes. What it requires is that you share your changes IF you distribute something that is based on those changes. You don't have to distribute. If you want, you can keep your modifications all to yourself, and use them internally.
You mentioned one way that a world without copyright could work: commissions. I would not want to rely on only that. I'd want every idea out there, so that while creators would always miss out on compensation from some methods, they won't miss out from all. I'm thinking more of multiple patronage systems, with every possible safeguard to limit the potential for corruption. Some funding could be public, through taxes. And some could be through private donations. We'd have dozens of ways for deciding who should receive money. We have a little of this now, in the form of prizes and awards, things like the Nobel Prize, Hugo and Nebula Awards, the X Prizes, Clay Mathematics Institute Millenium Prizes, Topcoder, and so on. They aren't nearly enough.
It also seems you are trying to make us out as a bunch of hypocrites.
Yes, that is exactly what I am trying to do.
You admit it. What's your bitch anyway?
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
But without copyright, the GPL is unnecessary.
I disagree completely, and this is my whole point. Without copyright, software authors would not be able to require sharing of derivative works. Someone could take a piece of software, make modifications to it, release it as a commercial product, and not release the changed source code. With copyright in place, the changes are required to be released. The GPL requires copyright enforcement in order to function as a license. What is so hard to understand about this?
Without copyright, entities could not copy publicly available software and "protect" it by slapping a copyright on it, and then take our work away from us by suing everyone for copyright infringement! That's the sort of thing the GPL is designed to stop.
Even with copyright, entities cannot do that, simply because the publicly-available software is already publicly available and would be considered prior art (or whatever the copyright equivalent is, I know "prior art" is a patent term). I don't understand why you think the GPL helps in this case.
And you shall not forbid sharing in a backhanded way either, by making an improvement that makes the original impractical, and then refusing to let anyone else have or make that same improvement, all while claiming that you are not stopping anyone from sharing, because the original is still available.
Ah, so that's what you're getting at. I don't understand your "makes the original impractical" phrase - please explain. But yes, the GPL forward-propagates its sharing requirement to derivative works, by means of copyright enforcement. Without copyright, the GPL can't do that. Amazingly, I think you just agreed with me.
Every move that strengthens copyright also strengthens copyleft.
Yes, you did just agree with me. The contrapositive of that is that every move that weakens copyright also weakens copyleft - specifically, if copyright were weakened as many on Slashdot call for, the GPL would be weakened and would lose its ability to require derivative works to be released for free.
You can do all that right now, with software released under the GPL. The GPL explicitly allows sales. All that is required is that you convey the changes to the public. You also seem to be unaware that in fact the GPL does NOT require that you share your changes.
Yes, anyone can do anything in isolation and not tell anyone about it. This is mostly true even of traditionally-copyrighted IP too, but it's uninteresting from an economic standpoint.
Posting in a troll thread!
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
I'll try again to explain why the GPL is unnecessary without copyright. I said "make that same improvement" for a reason. Suppose there is no copyright, no GPL, and you don't want to share. Fine, don't share. We'll reverse engineer or reinvent your much vaunted improvement, if we think it worthwhile. We'll probably even improve on it. Without copyright (and without software patents), you have no legal way to stop us from doing that. Also, we can make you wish you had shared. Now, it is easier if you just share it, and that is where the GPL does indeed go a little further. But don't kid yourself that no one else will be able to come up with the same improvements you have, and most definitely don't kid yourself that no one will be able to follow your direction. The main point of the GPL is that you can't use copyright to lock down improvements. Without copyright, you could not do lock downs anyway. It is copyright that enables you to do legal lock downs, and it is copyleft that uses copyright to prevent that.
I don't understand your "makes the original impractical" phrase
A change that genuinely improves software makes the original second rate, does it not? If the change did not do that, then it isn't an improvement. The original is still perfectly usable of course. But it is now obsolete. That's what I mean by impractical. You could take a team of horses and wagons from the Mississippi to the West Coast on the old Oregon Trail. But it is utterly impractical to spend months doing that when you could make that trip in hours with a car or a plane. Now, improvements to software are usually not that severe, and the original is still good enough to be useful. For instance, the ancient compress utility does not compress as well as gzip, but it is not orders of magnitude worse. It is better in one respect. Compress is a little faster than gzip. Yet to continue using compress comes with a cost, puts you at a disadvantage. You will need a little more hard drive space, a little more time to transmit compressed data over a network. A little disadvantage can be enough to sink a business. Not good for the economy or fair to you if the original is your work, and someone else improves on that and then has and employs legal means to forbid you from making the same improvements.
anyone can do anything in isolation and not tell anyone about it.
But in the case of GPL software, you can tell the world about it. And no one will have any legal recourse, so long as you don't distribute.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Fine, don't share. We'll reverse engineer or reinvent your much vaunted improvement, if we think it worthwhile. We'll probably even improve on it.
Ah, see you're cheating. Making improvements is not free. It costs time and/or money. Without copyright (and thus without the GPL sharing restriction), if you want to make the same improvements, you have to spend some time and/or money too. Meanwhile, while you are doing that, I'm selling my improved version for profit.
Without copyright and the GPL, I will make you spend the time/money to reinvent it. Yes, this is not great for a utopian, communist society where the benefit of improvements should be had by all immediately at zero cost, but it certainly works better in a capitalist society. If the improvements are good enough that people will buy my product over competitors' products even for 6 months, that's huge.
Now, maybe you're smarter than me so it will take you less time. And it certainly is easier to do something once someone else has done it first, even without source. But required sharing means it takes you no time and no money, so I gain no competitive advantage over you from making the improvements. Effectively, the GPL restricts me from gaining competitive advantage over you.
If you go back to the original article, Company A makes a router with Linux-based routing tools on it, under the GPL. Company B improves the software and wants to sell the improved version for profit. Company A says "no you can't do that, you have to give us the software fore free because of the GPL". Company A probably wants to include the improved software on a new version of the router, so that they can charge a premium for the new version. And sadly for Company B, Company A is in the right, because of the GPL and copyright. Company B invested time and money in its improved software, but (barring time for this thing to get through the courts) Company A is just going to take their improvement for zero time and zero money, and Company B is going to be out its initial investment.
Why is the must-share restriction better than the don't-share restriction? That's the inconsistency.
Because sharing is better than not sharing. There's no inconsistency. If someone thinks that the best situation would be one in which sharing was enforced in all cases, it's perfectly consistent for them to both advocate a legal framework that enforces sharing in some cases (the GPL), and to condemn legal situations that prevent sharing (restrictive copyright licenses). The position you are calling inconsistent just says "we think some restrictions are good and should be enforced, and other restrictions are bad and should not be enforced." Treating different things differently isn't inconsistent.
If there were such separate legal frameworks, then it would be consistent. But the framework that prevents sharing (copyright) is the same one that enforces sharing (the GPL, or, copyright). You can't argue for relaxed copyright when it comes to music and movies, but strong copyright when it comes to software. Many people on Slashdot argue for the elimination of copyrights for the former. Maybe those aren't the same people that argue for strong copyright for software, or maybe the pro-software-copyright people are for a reduction in length of copyright term (which is certainly reasonable), or some other non-extreme/moderate position. But please read my original post again.
This story is precisely what I'm talking about.
APK detected. If you Googled the name "Alexander Peter Kowalski" you would find these:
http://www.thorschrock.com/2008/05/19/how-to-respond-when-people-threaten-to-sue-you-on-the-web/
A nice bit using APK as an example of how to handle yourself when dealing with people "like these." APK is the poster child for this behavior.
http://www.jeremyreimer.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=4128
More of the same from other people... complaints mostly and somewhere in there, his home address. Probably moved by now since many complaints about this nuisance date back before the year 2000... quite a career.
http://www.acronymgeek.com/APK/Alexander_Peter_Kowalski/276459
Here he is so infamous that he is registered with an acronym.
I'll skip the crappy registry cleaner utilities. There are hundreds of those all equally useless. And really... engine? Is that what a utility gets called? An engine?
http://twitter.com/#!/klastalov/statuses/2001247938
Here's a link from an APK fan... worth reading
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=821190&start=40
This is beyond awesome.
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-33596.html
Yet more indicating his stellar reputation as a contributing member of society who gets along well with everyone.
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1010242&start=40
Another sample... these are dated 2001. I mean really. If a person goes a whole 10 years like this and everyone seems to respond to him in the same way, what sane person can believe that he's not the problem and that the rest of the world just wants to attack him for no good reason. This is just a person who will never look at himself as the source of his own problems.
"erroneus" spelled in this way is a kind of loop. Also, it was taken from an error message reported by old IRC server software after a user attempted to change his nick to something that is not allowed -- "erroneus nick change." Oh yeah, I go way back.
What I find amazing is that he replied to my same comment numerous times and then replied to his own replies numerous times. His replies are hilariously like elementary school tactics rather like calling someone "chicken" or in his case "...ran away!" As people go, APK is quite a piece of work and completely genuine I'm convinced. He's literally stuck in a kind of loop somehow. Tracking just what he does on Slashdot alone is quite impressive. He has to track individual targets all over the place checking and rechecking comments and threads to keep his fire burning. And it's not just here. It's other places too. This is probably the most angry and obsessive person I have ever witnessed. I am completely convinced that he's over-the-top mentally ill.
He is truly the most disturbed person I have witnessed online ever. He has gone over my posting history adding taunts to every open discussion thread available attempting to incite some kind of reaction. He has gone to amazing lengths to do this. And this is not the act of an angry person. Anger doesn't work like that. And this is not the act of a mere troll either. Trolls do no focus or stalk their targets. So what explains this bizarre behavior? We might start by asking what he seeks to gain. Given that he perpetually cites mediocre programming and having an article or two published, he thinks he is a celebrity and that everyone should kneel to his glory. (Here's a clue -- I have worked in media publishing before... from the outside, it does appear glamourous, but on the inside, it's just work and a way to generate ad revenue. So congratulations, you helped someone sell some more ads... and your mediocre software on these download sites? Yup, more ad revenue.) His ego and self-identity has become based on what he believes of himself. In my experience, people with beliefs of this sort will literally fight to the death to defend them.
He has demonstrated the inability to control himself as demonstrated by his wild and unyielding attacks. (Attacks with assertions of victory from a battle no less) He has also demonstrated a complete failure to appreciate what his actions look like to the rest of the world. This makes him delusional and egocentric with tendencies favoring egomania.
This guy is seriously disturbing to watch. A person in this position has his entire identity built up on delusion. For him to "get better" he would first have to discard the biggest part of his own sense of self-identity and that's not an easy thing to do and for most, quite impossible. People learn some hard lessons in life with regards to serious changes in understanding of one's self and the world around them -- simple things like relationships and ideology -- things that people often experience at some point in life or another. And those changes represent only a small portion of what is considered to be character and identity. What we are witnessing is something much larger. We are witnessing at least 10 years of delusion and obsessive, combative behavior seemingly without rest.
His fight to defend and preserve his ego is primarily a battle taking place within himself. This explains why he is unable to recognize that a single response to another user is not enough or that others do not feel the need to respond or the sense of urgency he feels. He is not fighting other people -- people who only visit here once in a while. He is fighting an enemy that will never leave his side and has been there unrelentingly.
In a way, he is a star. His self-image is currently being supported by the pressure created by his burning inner-struggle. This cannot go on indefinitely and given the heat of his inner-struggle, it is doomed to burn out sooner rather than later. And when that happens, his self-image will collapse on itself. If he is lucky, he will have some family that will help him through the recovery.
I find it hard to imagine, though, a person such as this actually having any family left as his behavior isn't limited to slashdot as demonstrated earlier, and likely isn't limited to the internet. These types of personality struggles have a way of manifesting themselves in all aspects of life as this is a matter of identity and not merely "online identity."
APK, if you want help, ask for it. Your obsessive, aggressive and likely violent personality does not affect me the way you think it does. It inspires fascination in me mostly... and perhaps a little pity too. If you have any family left, go seek them out. If not, I can't imagine where you might turn as it is a foregone conclusion at this point that you have no friends.
Well said. Agreed to and supported here.
That would be incorrect. I never post AC. I state my position and move on.
The behavior is the issue I point out. No one could be jealous of having lack of impulse control or impatience waiting for a response. To one comment, APK will respond 6 or more times and when he doesn't get a response, he will seek out other threads to insert childish taunts. The links linked to, I hadn't even looked at until now and it turns out he links to things other than what I wrote. So it's bad enough he goes after anything I write, he thinks I am responsible for much more.
I do find it interesting that his perceptions of "shooting down in flames" and "fail and run" are nothing more than not being interested in continuing a discussion further.
If I were angry or upset, I would not hide it. In this case, I just think he is nuts and it would seem my research into the matter indicates a pattern of this behavior all over the net. And to be clear, this behavior is not socially typical and is considered by textbooks to be indication of an abnormal mental state.
Am I wrong? Is his behavior "normal"? Do we see this sort of behavior for most people? And does the behavior not match up against the classical definition of egomania? If I am wrong in these observations, I would like someone to cite specifics as to why it is wrong. And given the age of this thread, I'm pretty certain that it is you, apk, who made the reply I am replying to. You're far too obvious.
Every once in a while, I'll yank his chain, and I've gotten him so paranoid that he now accuses almost any AC poster as being mine. He's totally obsessed with me, and it's funny, because it just makes it all the more apparent that he's not all there.
Like his accusing me of greed for giving away code that I wrote and license under the GPL. Funny definition of greed, as in "funny == sicko".
I've been ignoring him for a while, but I guess it's time to do my share of keeping him busy and off the streets by giving him a random kick in the head (though in his paranoid world I've supposedly replied to him dozens or even hundreds of times in the past weeks, when in reality, I was too busy doing an expose on starmedia to even notice him).
Never lets reality get in the way!
So, please explain to everyone how giving away GPL'd software from a site that has never carried any ads (no adwords, no banners, etc) makes me a greedy advertiser.
BTW - I'm not libeling you when I call you a useless idiot - it's simply the truth. Why not pull your head out of your rectum for a while and experience reality as something other than an ass-klingon?
Maybe when I'm finished with Starmedia, I should give you the same treatment ... nah, you and your stupid hosts file are too much of a joke for anyone to take seriously. Go HOSTS yourself.
This troll post is a public service from the "Keep APK off the streets and barking at the moon" consortium. Feel free to contribute.
Look at the timestamps, apk. You're the one stalking me, not the other way around. Always has been, always will be. You're obsessed with me, and yet, I hardly ever notice you, because unlike you, I'm not stuck in some fantasy past.
Now go cry to mama, because you even suck at trolling.
And please explain how giving away gpl code is greedy. Don't duck the issue, you useless turd.
Heh... greed.... nice. If that's a problem for him, then he shouldn't allow his wares to be distributed on services that sell advertising which is pretty much all of them. In fact, the articles written by him are also advertising driven. Somehow he really thinks this is some sort of competitive dick-sizing fight arena where everything he says is some sort of [violent reference] response of some kind that "blows people away."
This guy operates under his real name. It's unfortunate for him. This is a publicly available forum. Any employer or anyone who might hire him to do something can and will easily search his name out on the web. They will find this stuff and they will find all the stuff I pointed out and more. He has really put himself at a disadvantage here. And he somehow believes that "being right" is enough justification and vindication but that's not how it works in life. You get into a car accident and even though it's not your fault, your insurance rates will go up with or without good justification... same for bar fights -- maybe not your fault, but you were involved. And if an employer sees this, it won't matter what he thinks his justification may be, they will see this insanity for themselves and decide it's better to keep their distance.
He would have known this if he had used a modern ad blocker instead of his stupid hosts file. He could have just disabled ad blocking on the site for a minute and seen that he had been totally p0wned by Rachel (all she did was exploit his willingness to lie and believe the worst of anyone when it suits his own warped purposes - and only after saying plenty of times that she was trolling him).
Of course, if I *had* been making money from http://starmedia.trolltalk.com/ (as an example), there's nothing inherently wrong with that. That link is an ongoing example of citizen journalism, and I had to fight with my hosting company to reinstate it on that basis after starmedia's owner complained about my exposing his frauds. Reporters in other media make money off their journalistic endeavors, just as they do on the Internet. I choose not to. Who knows, maybe in some future alternate reality I'll become a rich and famous investigative reporter, (yeah, right :-) but right now, it's about exposing fraud and doing the right thing, not about monetization.
I certainly don't look down on traditional journalists - I'm meeting with one next week to discuss the whole starmedia mess as well as get a preview the stuff I haven't published yet. This is the future of news - cooperative, as well as competitive. It's about negotiating with hosting companies to not shut you down when a scammer complains that you're ruining their "business model," but instead acknowledge that citizen journalism is part of the common good and as such overrides any limitation of the TOS. It's about having other slashdotters ready to mirror your reporting if censorship stays in place. It's about reporting stuff even when it means you open yourself up to lawsuits, because it's the right thing to do.
Plenty of people run ads on their sites to take at least some of the financial bite out of it. I don't. Not because there's anything wrong with it in principle, I just haven't bothered to consider it, in part because of privacy concerns with ad-tracking/user-tracking. Ad servers that track you from site to site are just plain wrong, and I'll never have anything to do with them. The old-fashioned "pay per view with no tracking" I have no similar ethical issues with, but right now, I want to focus on other stuff instead.
APK (Alexander Philip Kowalski) has serious issues, he's been cyberstalking me for some time, and his "reality" needs some serious meds. He should do himself and the world a favor and go HOSTS file himself :-)
You may note his excessive and repetitive use of the term "libel." You may want to look up the term in detail to see where anything you have said can be considered such. I have and so far, everything I have said is in direct reference to things he has said backed with my commentary which is my [let's call it 'unqualified'] opinion. I doubt I'll be target of an actual lawsuit and even if I were, his own actions are far more damning than anything I could say here. And besides that, imagine what would happen if a slashdotter were to be sued for libel? There are more than enough supporters, vigilantes and interests here to work against anything like that from being successful.
Still, it would be good to be sure you don't say too much of the wrong stuff and definitely don't make stuff up. Also, I linked to a page that contained his home address... probably no longer accurate after all this time, but still -- there are standards were actually publishing such information could result in adverse legal action where you would be found liable.
But one thing about libel claims that I found most interesting is the emotional injury issue. I think we pretty much agree that this guy is more than a little "off balance." Claims of emotional injury or damage might easily fit in this case as evidence of mental and emotional issues seem pretty clear... but it would be like charging someone with arson who attempted to burn down a house that was already on fire.
I'm not the least worried. He threatened to sue me, I told him to go ahead, produced the links showing he's always making those threats and never going through with them, big talker, small doer, blah blah blah ... end result, he began making all sorts of excuses why "it's not worth it."
Once someone says it's not worth it, they lose the right to sue for that particular event, since you can now use their own words that "it's not worth it" against them, to show that there were, at most, de minimus damages.
It's really pitiful - the first time he tried to get away with the "I'll sue you" threat, he was claiming to have a law firm on retainer "so that it wouldn't cost him more just to sue" (he obviously doesn't know how those arrangements work). At the same time, he was explaining elsewhere that he was no longer going to pay to serve up his "hosts files" and other stuff because he wanted to save the $80 a year to buy a new graphics card instead.
He's a joke with no punch line. A stalker who does so to try to increase his own sense of importance in the world, not realizing that everyone is laughing at him, and the more he tries to lie and bully, the more attention he draws to his eccentric, bizarre, misogynist behavior.
He really has a problem with women proving him wrong. He cannot stand that, and resorts to childish bullying and name-calling, like any other immature pinhead.
In my case, I really, really got his goat, and not just because I encourage others to use the same tactics against him that he uses, and that I exposed his threats as hollow bluffs (see my user profile for why he's obsessed with me personally).