Slashdot Mirror
Hamstersoft Ebook App Rips Off GPL3 Code, Say Calibre Devs
Nate the greatest submits news of a claim that a recently released ebook application from Hamstersoft is actually built from code lifted from calibre, the ebook library app. He writes "It turns out that one calibre contributor is now reporting that his code was pirated for Hamstersoft. You can find the full details over on John Schember's blog. It's technically complicated and quite long. You can also find a non-technical summary. The short-short version is that Hamstersoft needs to give away a complete source code for the Hamstersoft Ebook Converter because that app uses parts of calibre, which is licensed under GPL v3. John gave Hamstersoft a month to comply and they did not. Now that app is clearly a GPL violation."
Queue the GPL critics praising the BSD license. The short-short-short of it is that if these fuckers didn't want to have to abide by the GPL3 license, they shouldn't have been lazy pieces of worthless stealing shit and wrote their own fucking code.
I hope they get sued into fucking oblivion.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Surely the behaviour of a criminal, stealing code that they didn't intend to obey the licence of?
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
Dear submitter:
They appear to have moved stuff.hamstersoft.com to store.hamstersoft.com to dodge search engine blocks.
This is the entire intent of the GPL (for good or bad). If Hampstersoft don't like it, they shouldn't have ripped off the code. Now I hope they get sued.
It looks like they do offer the code for the product?
http://ebook.hamstersoft.com/en/support
Link to a ZIP file at the bottom of the page above.
So, is this a non-issue or did the company throw the code up quickly to avoid the DMCA?
We all know you shouldn't steal public property for personal profit, and this theft wasn't unique or creative in any way. Where's the news?
This isn't really any different than stories about random violent crimes or bad weather in other states. It's not relevant to your life, it doesn't teach you anything you didn't know already, and it's only purpose is to generate page views. It's not like I don't care about protecting GPL or preventing corporate malfeasance, I just question how this story tells me anything I didn't already know.
I like news that tells me something...new.
IP laws (in general, not all of them do) currently DO hold innovation. But those guys knowingly violated GPL licensed software because they were too lazy to write their own. I don't support him the same way I wouldn't support someone stealing code from a closed project to use in their product.
Or a software company. You can't use code from other company projects unless you release the modified code to the company's ownership.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Yahoo was the first to respond. They said they get all of their search results from Microsoft via Bing and referred me to Microsoft. So no luck there.
I don't care who they get their search results from. They are the site provider and are responsible for following the DMCA. Failure to do so will strip them of their safe harbor provisions and open them up to liability alongside Hamstersoft.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Stallman et al view the GPL as a transitional measure -- as long as copyrights exist, they need to use the system to protect themselves. Once it's gone (haha) they are well aware their GPL will be gone too. This is their plan.
Now I think they're crazy, but I get mildly annoyed at people who can't see beyond the length of their own nose thinking that if you are against an institution like copyright or patent then you are somehow morally bankrupt if you also use it. Patents in particular, you need defensively if you want to do anything remotely new.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
It's not hypocritical to believe in GPL and simultaneously despise the way intellectual property works in modern life.
I believe in intellectual property where it is public property, something distributed openly and protected from corporate schills who want to strangle the path of innovation lest it lead away from their business model. You can be anti-corporate and against 75 year copyright yet still believe in the value of short legal monopolies and in the good of clearly defining (and protecting) public property.
I feel about long-lasting intellectual property restraints the way I feel about jet fighters: in public hands, yes. In private hands, break out the pitchforks.
From their EULA: (http://hamstersoft.com/eula)
RESTRICTIONS
The source code, design, and structure of HAMSTER free software are trade secrets except software licensed under GNU GPL 3.0, LGPL, MPL, BSD-licensed or Free components used to compile. You will not disassemble, decompile, or reverse engineer it, in whole except to the extent expressly permitted by law or except GNU GPL 3.0, LGPL, MPL, BSD-licensed or Free components used to compile HAMSTER free software. You will not use HAMSTER free software for illegal purposes. You will comply with all export laws. HAMSTER free software is licensed, not sold.
---
Sorry guys, you can't have GPL'd code and trade secrets in one piece of software.
assignment != equality != identity
Actually, no. The only way to enforce code sharing is via the GPL, and thus copyright. Without copyright, nobody would be forced to share their code, even if they took it from someone else.
Of course, you would be free to reverse engineer it, but it wouldn't be the same as what you get from the GPL. Basically, the entire concept of the FSF's idea of free software requires copyright in order to exist.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
On the other hand, largely because of the efforts of team MPAA, even the vaguest hints of something resembling copyright infringement are your authorization to more or less auto-DMCA the target whenever they poke their heads up in parts of the internet under US jurisdiction...
I'm a good friend of John, the blog post author, and have been working with him throughout this process in trying to unravel Hamstersoft's deceit. I want to make a few things pretty clear:
Yes, they posted a zip of code on a hard-to-find link. But they did something sneaky. They included the very short and trivial C# wrapper around Calibre, but they only included a compiled (well, .NET dll) binary blob of the bulk of the application code -- the user interface. And of course, since all the heavy lifting is in Calibre itself, this code is the most important part of the application. They went through pains to extract the source of the UI components and only include it publicly as already compiled. They even packaged it up in a nice Visual Studio Solution so that you can load it up and hit "compile" and you get the software. It looks, at first, like they've complied. But then you dig into the source code actually provided, and it becomes obvious that they haven't provided the majority of the code at all, but only the wrapper code and a few call outs to the provided compiled DLL.
Cheap trick.
The other thing to take notice of in John's post is that in fact the search engines and Facebook have hardly complied -- there are still search results and Facebook pages for this company. Now, you can debate and troll and bikeshed and argue the validity and ethics of the DMCA all you want, but the fact of the matter is that when the big companies want to use it against the small, it seems to work, but when some OSS devs want to take the case up with giant companies, the response is exceedingly lackluster. (Likely, this being on /. will change things, we'd hope...)
The final point to consider is what this all means for GPL and OSS. Hamstersoft is Russian, so good luck trying law suit or anything. But at the very least, shouldn't the OSS community have an army of lawyers willing to work probono, or financed by various foundations, for this kind of thing exactly? John mentioned he tried contacting one such organization, and was unsuccessful. He's told me that at another point, he got in contact with a lawyer from another place who didn't offer to do any work for him but vaguely suggested he send these notices to Google, Facebook, etc. That's pretty lackluster. I don't want to complain to loudly, but instead I just want to suggest that this issue call our attention to the bigger issue -- what institutions do we have in place to protect OSS software effectively as small OSS devs? Do such institutions work? In this case, thus far, they don't seem to be working.
ZX2C4
It's because of Hampster Dance. 13 years later, people still think it's spelled "hampster".
I approve of the GPL, but the copyright period is FAR too long. Of course, that's not the doing of the FSF, so don't blame them, but they could have thrown the code into public domain after five years. Or maybe ten.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The problem is the people who used this software then DIDN'T release under the GPL.
I don't think anyone thinks that copyright hold back innovation... that would be patents.
Even if they were, most people who find it ok to steal^Hcopy for their own personal use think it is not if you're going to publish-for-profit.
Furthermore, there are a lot of readers and commentators on slashdot. Quite likely, they have different interests and opinions.
Finally, most people have a least some double standards.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
You mean other than the fact that the GPL mandates that the source be provided? I don't personally agree that people should be forced to release their own code because they borrowed somebody elses code, but the GPL does require that and so they have to do it.
If they don't want to, there are options, such as getting the license changed or not using the code. But, it is a violation of the terms of the license.
Of course those people didn't just copy. They plagiarized.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Without copyright, nobody would be forced to share their code
Without copyright, people would be making and openly trading thoroughly commented disassemblies of proprietary software.
Of course, you would be free to reverse engineer it
And students with more time than money would do just that.
The behavior of a virus.
No it's not. If I make a piece of software and releases it under closed proprietary license no one would accuse it of being a virus, however if I opened it up just a bit and said that other people are free to use it just as long as they do the same then it's virus? Don't want to comply? Don't use it.
The ironing.
I hope it's at least done with a steam iron. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
OK, I've now seen from other comments that they didn't actually plagiarize, but just didn't release their own parts, as required by the GPL. Sorry for the confusion.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I don't think anyone thinks that copyright hold back innovation...
You would be wrong then. At least one person thinks that copyright holds back innovation. Me.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Different kinds of free though.
Calibre developers chose (either consciously or through ignorance) the GPL licence, which means free as in free speech. Nobody should be able to distribute programs based on the Calibre code without also releasing the source. Hamstersoft software, however, is free as in free beer (since they don't distribute sources, claim there are trade secrets in their software etc.).
The DMCA take-down notices are to be sent to the providers that are hosting the content. The search engines are not hosting this content, and sending them take-down notices is a heavy-handed abuse of the law.
So either John misunderstands the DMCA or is willfully abusing it. Either way it makes it a lot harder to sympathize with his attempt to address violation of copyright law, when he himself is willing to resort to the very behavior of other copyright abusers.
But at the very least, shouldn't the OSS community have an army of lawyers willing to work probono, or financed by various foundations, for this kind of thing exactly?
What exactly do you expect them to do? The offender is in Russia and is hosted in Russia. How is a small donation-funded organization supposed to enforce copyright in situations where even large well-funded companies like Microsoft have been unable to do so?
People sometimes get away with breaking the law, especially far away countries. It sucks, but it's life and you have to learn to accept it. The people who won't are exactly the ones that drive us further and further into a police state in their unending drive to "decrease crime", not understanding the trade-off they are making.
At some point you have to trust people. Most criminal acts ends up being unnoticed, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a police force and sue when appropriate.
The GPL does not require all code in an application to be released, only when such code is considered a "derived work". There are lots of examples of how you can legally get around the GPL, such as by making the code into it's own executable and shelling out to it, or making it a web service, or any number of other physical seperations.
There's even a lot of dissent within the community as to whether DLL's are considered derived works. The FSF thinks they are, but lots of other lawys think they're not.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
From now on, thanks to your misspelling and their behavior, I'll just call them Dumpstersoft.
If you iron it enough then it could definitely become irony.
And everyone here thinks the exact same way.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
They can not be forced to disclose the source code. This is a common misconception about the GPL.
If a GPL violation goes to court, the judge can order the infringing party to stop the distribution and pay damages to the copyright owner, but he will not order the disclosure of the source code. The disclosure of the source code is only a gesture that most FOSS developers will accept to drop the charges.
Of course, if the software is only a thin layer of sugar around a core of GPL code, stopping the distribution means closing the business.
On the other hand, the situation can be reverted: the GPL code may be just a small, non-essential part of the software. Think readline, for example: a software is more comfortable with line editing, but it is in no way necessary. In such situation, the violator may decide to pay the damages and remove the GPLed code from its software, to keep in business with its proprietary model.
But this makes me think of something I've been puzzling over for awhile now....WTF is wrong with BSD? Seriously, is it broken? Is it shit? Is it a hard to use incompatible mess, what?
Because I just don't get why if you don't want to play the GPL game you'd even bother with GPL code when BSD is right there. hell it is good enough for Apple, it was good enough for MSFT when they needed a temporary TCP/IP stack to get the original WIN NT out the door on time, so WTF? If these companies don't want to play the GPL game then just don't mess with GPL code, is that so damned hard? To me it is almost like a klepto, that just can't be happy unless they are snatching something.
Either use BSD or just buy off the developer so they'll give you a non GPL license to their code, is that really so hard to follow? It seems to me a hell of a lot more logical than all the hoop jumping and possible bad press when someone finds out they ripped GPL like in TFA.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Actually, no. The only way to enforce code sharing is via the GPL, and thus copyright. Without copyright, nobody would be forced to share their code, even if they took it from someone else.
Technically, that's probably true, but if copyright was truly gone, there probably wouldn't be much point in not sharing the code to begin with.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I did not mean it as a means for license compliance but rather to check if modifications have been made.
Surely the behaviour of a criminal, stealing code that they didn't intend to obey the licence of?
They didn't steal anything - everyone still has the original code. No one lost anything. What they did was a copyright violation, not theft.
Isn't that the standard /. argument when someone equates copyright violations with theft?
Of course, this is the GPL so out come the pitchforks and torches...
And this will be moded down by someone who disagrees or dislikes having /. hypocrisy pointed out...
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Lets be fair, copyright violation is not theft, no matter who does it or what copyright is violated. Nothing was stolen, nothing was "lost" here. The original code is still safe and sound.
BSD has pretty much nothing to do with Calibre would be the main reason. GPL != GNU/Linux.
Huh? The same reasons would apply to not share the code. To make it harder for others to use your code to take money out of your pockets. If it becomes legal to reverse engineer and share the source code, then business will spend more effort protecting their code from reverse engineering.. making it even more obfuscated, encrypting it at multiple levels, etc...
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Now that app is clearly in violation of the GPL.
FTFY. An app cannot be a violation, the violation was the act of noncompliance! /pedantry
Oh, right. I guess I was just assuming that if copyright was abolished, we probably wouldn't be using money anymore.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
It depends on what you sue for. There is a thing called "specific performance," which is basically forcing the defendant to comply with the terms of the license or contract in cases where there is no adequate remedy in monetary damages. An injunction is also possible, and even likely, in copyright infringement cases.
Actually, it's a myth that Microsoft used BSDL code. It's true, they used code from the Berkeley Standard Distribution of Unix, but this code predates the BSDL license and Microsoft paid for the license.
So, what they used was a non-BSDL licensed version of the code, and thus they did not have to conform to the BSDL license.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Copyright Infringement, not "copyright violation"
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Besides, how would a commercial software company react if someone incorporated portions of their source code into their own product without complying with whatever terms they demanded?
What if someone took the source code to windows that was leaked a couple of years back, and used it to produce their own clone version? You don't think MS would go after then with every lawyer they could find for copyright infringement?
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Licensing software under GPL would not hamper innovation or anything like that- you're free to use it however you like, as long as you keep it free. It's software patents, proprietary software and the like that slow innovation.
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
Not to mention trade secrets have no protection under law, in fact that's why copyright law exists in the first place.
Never say never.
Approximately 40 states have adopted the model Uniform Trade Secrets Act (USTA). The USTA defines a trade secret as "information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy."
The USTA specifies remedies for violation of trade secrets including injunctions, damages, and attorney's fees. It also gives courts the authority to grant protective orders to ensure the secrecy of a trade secret during the discovery phase of litigation, and prevents disclosure of confidential information by witnesses.
Federal Protection for Trade Secrets
The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 federally criminalizes the theft or misappropriation of trade secrets under two key provisions. The first makes it illegal to steal trade secrets for the benefit foreign powers; the second, makes it illegal to steal trade secrets for commercial or economic purposes regardless of who benefits.
Trade Secrets
The reverse engineering of software faces considerable legal challenges due to the enforcement of anti reverse engineering licensing provisions and the prohibition on the circumvention of technologies embedded within protection measures. By enforcing these legal mechanisms, courts are not required to examine the reverse engineering restrictions under federal intellectual property law. In circumstances involving anti reverse engineering licensing provisions, courts must first determine whether the enforcement of these provisions within contracts are preempted by federal intellectual property law considerations. Under DMCA claims involving the circumvention of technological protection systems, courts analyze whether or not the reverse engineering in question qualifies under any of the exemptions contained within the law.
Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers) about Reverse Engineering
Because I just don't get why if you don't want to play the GPL game you'd even bother with GPL code when BSD is right there.
It is? Would you care to point out the BSD-licenced ebook program they could have used instead?
Would hamstersoft be happy if anybody else sells their books or apps without paying them ?
I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
Actually, you are also only partially correct. While you're correct that Microsoft licensed the code in 1990, the copyrights on the code (as found via a strings search) shows the copyright date on the code is 1983. This is the code that Spider licensed from Berkeley, and it predates the BSD license. Spider was licensed to resell the code.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Not exactly. In general, the slashdot crowd is against software patents and DRM, which are a completely different matter. That, and the Disney copyright extension acts, which steal from the public domain.
GPL only exists because of copyright in the first place, both as a source of necessity as well as where it gets its effectiveness from.
Without copyright, the GPL would be both useless, and superfluous.
Not true at all. People can profit from software the same way people profit from free software today.
They can either charge a boat load for the first copy, or they can contractually obligate their purchasers to pay them large amounts of money if they give it to someone else.
Or, they can make their money off support. If they don't give out source code, then nobody else can support it, thus they're the only source of support.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
For example, AVR libc is under BSD license. Many AVR microcontrollers are flashed with programs that have been compiled with AVR-GCC and contain some code from AVR libc.
Bad example. Linking a C program against a libc does not include enough code to make the program a derivative work of the libc; they are not bound to distribute the final product under the BSD license despite using a BSD licensed compiler.
Only the libc itself needs to be distributed in accordance with the terms of the license, if they also distribute a copy of the libc.
I agree that it is just as stupid to refer to this as piracy as it is to refer to any other case of copyright infringement as piracy. Arr.
That said, this does appear to be a very clear-cut case of copyright infringement, and it's a for profit company trying to extract money for someone elses work here, *precisely* the sort of case where copyright law is most defensible.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
You are welcome on my lawn.
They may claim they never signed/agreed to the GPL, and therefore aren't bound by any requirements of it. Specific performance remedy is a type of equitable relief and requires a valid contract/agreement between the parties.
In that case, the plaintiff would have little choice but to pursue a copyright infringement claim, and specific performance would be off the table.
Without agreeing to the GPL, with the code copyrighted, and no license, there would be infringement... so the remedy options would basically be monetary/statutory damages or injuctions.
Disclosure of source might be a settlement option, but it's not a thing the judge may order, any more than the judge could simply assign copyright of the product to the open source developer whose copyright was infringed.
No, piracy is copying of content by RIAA or MPAA members or software from BSA members. Stealing GPL is good old American business sense unless you are a communist hippie terrorist child pornographer atheist.
But... the future refused to change.
Without agreeing to the GPL they are in intentional violation of copyright. The means (under US law) max statutory damages of several hundred thousand dollars PER distribution (which if they even distributed it a dozen times could be several million dollars) and the court will probably award punitive damages of up to 9 times the statutory damages for intentional infringement. If they sold a hundred copies of the software they could conceivably be hit with a hundred million dollars in statutory damages and punitive awards.
Although you are right they could claim they didn't agree to the GPL, but by doing so they would make the damages much much worse. This is the reason in nearly every single case where legal proceedings are started companies comply with the GPL, because not agreeing to the contract contained in the GPL is a far worse fate then complying with the terms. People forget that this is by design, Stallman deliberately used copyright law (and it's massive damages) to create a license that creates a situation where complying with the license is the least damaging result to an infringer.
Now this is all hypothetical as the company in question is Russian and unless you are good friends with Putin nothing will happen to the people or companies involved..
Without copyright, you couldn't stop someone from sharing your code FOR you, either.
How could it be superfluous? What magical mechanism would make people give up their source code absent copyright? Seems more likely to me that it would be an even more closely guarded secret for many projects.
The EULA for the free eBook converter now contains some extra stuff, such as:
"The source code of Hamster Free eBook Converter inherits GNU GPL 3.0 rights from Calibre. You may all operations with it permitted by law. GNU GPL 3.0 restrictions must be met. You will not use Hamster Free eBook Converter for illegal purposes. You will comply with all export laws. Hamster Free eBook Converter is licensed, not sold."
which looks like it was written hastily, and
"GNU GPL 3.0
Calibre source codes: http://code.google.com/p/calibre-ebook/downloads/list
Hamster Free eBook Converter source codes: http://ebook.hamstersoft.com/en/support
License GNU GPL 3.0: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html"
So, they've included the GPL in their license terms, and have published the source code for the eBook converter. Looks like yet another win for GPL.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Yawn,.... another moronic false contradiction argument that wrongly presumes Slashdot as some sort of hive mind and not a community driven by a lot of individuals with many differing opinions.
Really, every time these discussions come up, the same arguments are made - and I keep asking if the people making said arguments have any understanding of rudimentary logic.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Surely the behaviour of a criminal...
There is a notice at the bottom of the related web page acknowledging the license. Hopefully that's a sign that they're working towards complying.
The app is free - so not a very hard core criminal unless there's malware?
http://ebook.hamstersoft.com/
"Hamster Free eBook Converter made by HamsterSoft and based on Calibre-engine created by Kovid Goyal and inherits all GNU GPL 3.0 restrictions."
Hopefully there is no incompatible code in there from others. I looked at the binary with a text editor and saw a comment near the end that may be part of code signing:
"thawte, Inc. Certification Services Division/(c) 2006 thawte, Inc. - For authorized use only" (I don't know for sure if that's a problem, I don't do windows. No Linux, OS X, or iOS versions visible)
Maybe someone should see if there's FFMPEG or MPLAYER code in their video conversion utility?
They broke the terms and conditions of using the source code they agreed to when distributing said code. The article summary however is incorrect.
They can simply stop distributing said application (might not be 100% correct), they're not forced to redistribute their source code, however it's not like we'd gain anything from them distributing code which they just downloaded anyway. No need for them not to do it really.
No one says that, however many people always mention the hypocrisy whenever there is a GPL violation. GPL haters gunna hate.
For jet fighters in public hands, you'll need SAMs, not pitchforks.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
"... such as by making the code into it's own executable and shelling out to it ..."
Which is what they did when they used ffmpeg & mencoder in one of their other products, Hamster Free Video Converter.
In other words, they have a history of this type of thing...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
I stand corrected, then. Eh. How, exactly?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
Precisiely, it's a symbiote, not a virus.
Surely the behaviour of a criminal, stealing code that they didn't intend to obey the licence of?
They didn't steal anything - everyone still has the original code. No one lost anything. What they did was a copyright violation, not theft.
Isn't that the standard /. argument when someone equates copyright violations with theft?
Of course, this is the GPL so out come the pitchforks and torches...
And this will be moded down by someone who disagrees or dislikes having /. hypocrisy pointed out...
Well, the difference is: people pirating movies aren't trying to make a profit out of it. ;) )
(Whereas the GPL basically exists to stop people from making a profit out of something
GPL wasn't created to abolish closed source. GPL was created to make sure that once free code stays free. When the MIT fixed some bugs in the original UNIX code and added some of the code themselves, UNIX Source labs suddenly stepped up, pointed at the source code license and claimed ownership for all the stuff MIT created. Additionally they took the code, incorporated it in the original UNIX and forbid MIT to provide their source code to others.
That's when RMS came into play and created a license which guaranteed that this can't happen again.
And if some people continue to claim the BSD license was so much more free and better, they should be told this little story and explain, how the BSD license would have avoided this problem.
Copyright prevents reverse-engineering, since it's used to enforce the license agreement. Without copyright, you don't need a license, and therefore don't need to accept the license agreement.
Linking a C program against a libc does not include enough code to make the program a derivative work of the libc; they are not bound to distribute the final product under the BSD license despite using a BSD licensed compiler.
While these two clauses are both true, strictly speaking, they're also unrelated.
The nice part about the BSD license is that it doesn't matter how much code you include, you're not obligated to distribute the final product under any given license.
They may claim they never signed/agreed to the GPL
That'd be the same as admitting to the court that they knew they were in breach of copyright law but decided to willfully continue anyway. NO sane company would tell that to the court!
Looking at their website, all trace of the Ebook software seems to have vanished, I'm glad to say.
That's a really interesting question. And I think one of the few ways patents could be validly applied to software.
Copyright and patent are supposed to be a trade, the public gives up a right in order to get a public good.
In this case, the public good is the source code. The right we give might be something like copyright or patent. If you want some sort of protection against your software being treated as being in the public domain, then you will put the source code for that software on file, and it will be released in 5 years when your protection expires.
That's a kind of grant of government monopoly I could actually get behind.
Of course, it encourages the creation of trojan horses. Software that you _want_ to have distributed widely and freely so that you can infect as many computers as possible with code that does stuff the owners of those computers would be angry about if they knew before they installed it.
I'm not sure how to protect against that. Maybe that would be a reason people would choose work under copyright or with available source over other stuff? I know that's a big part of the reason I have a huge preference for Open Source software.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Well, the difference is: people pirating movies aren't trying to make a profit out of it. ;) )
(Whereas the GPL basically exists to stop people from making a profit out of something
I wish that misconception would go away. I really wish, for example, that the Android marketplace would tell you when an app met the Open Source definition. I would feel much better about installing it then. And I would even pay for those apps from the Marketplace.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I'm one of the people who says that. And I agree with you. This isn't theft. It's a copyright violation.
Just because I think calling copyright violation 'theft' is highly misleading doesn't mean that I don't think copyright should exist. And this case, someone repackaging someone else's work in order to make a profit, is a case I think is clearly wrong.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I never went to University for CS and I studied assembly. In fact, I wrote a CGI library for Linux x86 assembler that didn't link with libc. This allowed you to write a native CGI application in 120 bytes! Although it only supported GET requests and I only wrote atoi() of all the conversion functions in libc. Pretty sweet if you ask me. This time that I spent so long ago has paid for itself many times over. And even more as I transition into iOS programming. Contrast that with my buddy Daniel who graduated from a state school with a masters in CS and doesn't know ANY assembler. He learned Java byte code, but never native assembler. He and his professors espouse the "but you'll never need to know that" school. It's a waste of time because the JIT/compiler can write better assembler than you can. Pshaw, children these days, lawns needing vacated.
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
Copyright Infringement, not "copyright violation"
Why? because it sounds less serious?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Not exactly. In general, the slashdot crowd is against software patents and DRM, which are a completely different matter. That, and the Disney copyright extension acts, which steal from the public domain.
No, the usual argument here is that because you are just digitally copying something and not stealing it, copyright infringement is not an offence at all
The illogicality of saying this and then whining about people breaking the GPL is almost funny.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I agree that it is just as stupid to refer to this as piracy as it is to refer to any other case of copyright infringement as piracy. Arr.
That said, this does appear to be a very clear-cut case of copyright infringement, and it's a for profit company trying to extract money for someone elses work here, *precisely* the sort of case where copyright law is most defensible.
Copyright law is either defensible or not. The status of the infringer is as irrelevant as the infringee. You can't say "copyright is wrong and illogical except when it involves free-as-in-beer participants".
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Well, the difference is: people pirating movies aren't trying to make a profit out of it.
Some of them are. And what's the difference anyway?
If Sid Student downloads Transformers 4 and doesn't buy it, and Pete Pirate downloads the same film and sells a copy, in both cases no money will go to the copyright holder. And the potential sale is lost to the copyright holder in either case.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Without copyright, nobody would be able to profit from selling software. The only software developers remaining would either be altruistic or profiting from services related to the software. I imagine that in these circumstances, most non-service-related software would be released with source code.
Rubbish, you'd just get a lot of firms selling packages of "free" software inextricalbly bundled with support contracts. And you'd still have the existing laws to prevent things like passing off, so you wouldn't be able to take Microsoft's source code and use it to create your own "Windows" product.
Now, as someone mentioned above, if this universal release of everything for free occurred because mankind had somehow found the key to infinite energy and materials and so could abolish the tedious concept of money and trading, then great. But in the meantime, society doesn't work like that.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So basically, if you change one line of code and recompile, you can put *that* under any license you please, right?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
From Free as in Freedom
After briefly introducing himself as a visitor from MIT, Stallman requested a copy of the laser-printer source code so that he could port it to the PDP-11. To his surprise, the professor refused to grant his request. "He told me that he had promised not to give me a copy," Stallman says.
And so Stallman could not improve the printer. Perhaps a small innovation that time, but having to constantly reinvent the wheel is certainly holding the software industry back.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Even the FSF will tell you, the GPL is not a contract. It covers distribution of a specific copyrighted work, and does not cover independent works which the same party may happen to also distribute.
Porting is hardly innovation. Besides, sometimes innovation comes from having to reinventing the wheel.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
I can say whatever I want to say. Just try and stop me :P
When copyright laws were invented, printing presses were very expensive things that few owned. Copyright laws were therefore de facto restrictions on businesses that had little to no affect on private individuals as a result. Over time as technology has progressed, the technology has improved, and the price of the equipment needed to effectively violate a copyright has decreased dramatically, so that copyright laws now affect a great many people that would never have had to worry about them when they were invented. It is not illogical to make a distinction between application of copyright law to businesses who are violating copyright for a profit, and individual 'infringers' whose activity is of a noticeably different nature.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I'm one of the people who says that. And I agree with you. This isn't theft. It's a copyright violation.
Just because I think calling copyright violation 'theft' is highly misleading doesn't mean that I don't think copyright should exist. And this case, someone repackaging someone else's work in order to make a profit, is a case I think is clearly wrong.
I think we in agreement on this; without copyright the GPL would be useless. I just find the arguments that some, not necessarily you but others on /.,make to rationalize copyright violations when pirating movies, music, or software while vociferously attacking anyone who commits, or is believed to have committed, a GPL violation. I find that hypocritical, despite the long winded rationals some make. You can't have the GPL and worship at the alter of "I should be free tio use copyrighted material in any way I want even if the owner of the copyright doesn't give me permission to do so."
In this case, the software may not even violate the GPL (once the GPL's code is made available); because, as I understand it, it is permissible to wrap non-GPL code around GPL'd code if you don't actually incorporate the GPL'd code. You could, for example, create software that puts a GUI on it and even add features provided you pass the information to separate GPL'd code rather than adding it to yours. Some may disagree with that interpretation but that's as much a philosophical argument rather than a licensing one.
Interestingly, the GPL places no restrictions on reusing and charging; as long as you comply with the requirements to make the source available, you can charge what you want.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
In Russian "hamster" is an internet slang word for a "mindless, unwary and predictable consumer of popular novelty items", a "lemming". Definitely not the kind of name people would trust (as long they know what it means)!
Interestingly, the GPL places no restrictions on reusing and charging; as long as you comply with the requirements to make the source available, you can charge what you want.
I wish more software under the GPL had a pay-for-download option. Especially software in the Android marketplace. I would like to help the authors continue to make improvements and more good software. But almost invariably software that actually complies with the Open Source definition (and especially GPL software) is only available for free.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Interestingly, the GPL places no restrictions on reusing and charging; as long as you comply with the requirements to make the source available, you can charge what you want.
I wish more software under the GPL had a pay-for-download option. Especially software in the Android marketplace. I would like to help the authors continue to make improvements and more good software. But almost invariably software that actually complies with the Open Source definition (and especially GPL software) is only available for free.
I agree. The issue is anyone can take the code and charge a bit less, making your model difficult to implement. I think Apple's walled garden actually offers the best way to do what you describe. An org such as EFF could act as the custodian and put apps on the app store. They would collect the fees and reimburse the developers. Apple would not host other instances of the same code. Granted, this works best for code from one or two developers but it could be a start to making OSS software better.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.