Popular Android ROM Accused of GPL Violation

An anonymous reader writes "A petition has recently been started to get the developer of the popular Android 'MIUI' ROM, Chinese based Xiaomi, to comply with the GPL. While Android itself is licensed under the Apache 2.0 License, and therefore does not actually require derivative works to be FOSS, the Linux kernel itself is GPL-licensed and needs to remain open. Unless Xiaomi intends to develop a replacement for the Linux kernel, they need to make their modifications public."

Comments

they need to make the entire kernel available

[Anonymous Coward]

not just their modifications, but all the gpl sources. they only need to make this available to their own customers.

Re:they need to make the entire kernel available

[Todd Knarr]

It depends on how they distribute the sources. If they accompany the binaries with the source code, then you're right. However, if they offer the sources for download or by any method not accompanying the binaries, they have to offer the source to any third party regardless of whether they're a customer or not. That's because the Linux kernel is under the GPL v2 with no option to use a later version, and section 3b of the GPL v2 specifically says the offer has to be good for any third party. 3a covers distribution only when the source accompanies the binaries, and 3c isn't available because it's only allowed for non-commercial distribution which this isn't.

Re:they need to make the entire kernel available

[mwvdlee]

Then the simple question becomes; did they make modifications to the kernel?

Re:they need to make the entire kernel available

[asdf7890]

they only need to make this available to their own customers

But they also can't stop their customers making the GPL covered code available elsewhere once they have access to it, so releasing to their customers is effectively releasing to the world.

that's good but I want to know:

[Anonymous Coward]

does it support /etc/hosts file?

Re:that's good but I want to know:

[crutchy]

oh no you mentioned hosts

Re:that's good but I want to know:

[webmistressrachel]

Crutchy, the brave apk-baiter...

Re:that's good but I want to know:

[crutchy]

not much else for entertainment on here nowadays

Re:that's good but I want to know:

[webmistressrachel]

Kinda true, actually. I had a huge run-in with apk - I think it actually had nothing to do with HOSTS but ended up being steered that way. In fact I may have been steering, I just can't remember...

Re:that's good but I want to know:

[crutchy]

apk is an idiot, but entertaining nonetheless

Re:that's good but I want to know:

[webmistressrachel]

So where the heck is he then? This will be the third time I've attempted to "summon" him in this thread - he's usually there sooner. Even if I mention him as AC, he'll be there sometimes, so he must like read every thread at -1 looking for HOSTs or whatever... that's just sad. I pity the guy :-(

Re:that's good but I want to know:

[crutchy]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3261471&cid=42076719

this is the latest thread where i've been taking pokes at him... i think he's pissed off that i keep bringing up the bug in his stupid reversing string function that he loves posting repeatedly, and now he's trying to make some kind of counterargument about how i don't "error trap" my code or whatever, even though the only code i've ever actually posted on /. was something that could replace all of apk's dodgy reverse string code with a single command.

he's also doing some more linux bashing here if you're interested http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3263923&cid=42057067

Re:that's good but I want to know:

[Anonymous Coward]

You pwned yourself here webmistressmultipleaccountusingTORtroll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3264195&cid=42081329

Re:that's good but I want to know:

[Anonymous Coward]

You pwned yourself webmistressmultipleaccountTORusingtroll http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3264195&cid=42081329

Re:that's good but I want to know:

[Anonymous Coward]

You pwned yourself troll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3264195&cid=42081329

they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing was stolen, only copied

no big deal

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes. The GPL. The only copyright most readers here defend.

Re:they are just bits

[mark-t]

Copying something that is copyrighted without permission *does* deprive the copyright holder of some of the value behind their copyright.

Copyright literally is a "right to copy"... although it's a legally granted and not a natural right... but the value inherent in it comes from its exclusivity. The copyright holder has an exclusive right to control copies of their work, and everybody else is supposed to obtain permission first. "Exclusive", by definition, means that nobody else is doing it, so when somebody does copy it work without permission, that exclusivity is compromised, and the value of it lessened.

And after all... if the mere right to copy wasn't really of any value to creators, then why would people who bother to make freely distributable works bother to copyright it at all? Why not just put the work into public domain?

The point, therefore, is that copyright *DOES* have value... it's difficult to quantify, but when somebody does infringe on copyright, some measure of that value is actually lost to the copyright holder.

Just because what is lost to the copyright holder is of no value to the person who takes it, doesn't mean that it isn't stolen.

Re:they are just bits

[fredprado]

You can't possibly prove the holder loses something. To be able to say that, you would have to prove that if this specific copyright violation haven't take place the holder would earn more, which you can't. It is not just difficult to quantify, it is impossible, and the quantity may very well be zero in the end.

Re:they are just bits

[viperidaenz]

Its easy to calculate losses of GPL violations.

Since the original author makes no money from the distribution of their code, they suffer no losses. Damages awarded: $0.00

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing was stolen, only copied

Nothing was stolen: true. Even so, it still doesn't make legal breaching the copyright law.

no big deal

You imply that only theft is a deal big enough?

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

That actually isn't necessarily the case. A GPL violation by another company on code I wrote may put my product at a disadvantage functionality wise. Even though I have given away my code and allow people to use it in other products it is not without benefits to me. Those benefits may be what sell my service/hardware/etc. The value isn't in selling exclusivity as it is in profiting from the benefits of software freedom.

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the GPL is essentially the antithesis of copyright, hence that whole "copyleft" thing. It's essentially a way to fight copyright within the confines of copyright itself.

Re:they are just bits

[crutchy]

try telling the mpaa that

Re:they are just bits

[AftanGustur]

Ah, yes. The GPL. The only copyright most readers here defend.

It may become as a surprise to you but most people are only interested in what they see as "their Social Group", if you feel like your life is/was a struggle then you will mostly be interested in people who struggle. If you are a billionaire you will most likely only be interested in billionaire's problems.

On the other side of the coin are people who don't believe the GPL is even a valid license.

Everyone will voluntarily defend their believes.

Welcome to slashdot!

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a few ultra ritch people, even less of those who don't believe in GPL.(some people don't believe in evolution) It doesn't make them right. GPL is fair license. It's worth defending it, so if many people here say it's good - they define meaning of word good, since they are the majority. And no, copyright breach is not theft, cause we said so.

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not copyright. It is a license.

Re:they are just bits

[mwvdlee]

In the case of GPL, there is an implicit payment in the form of work. I give you many hours of my work in exchange for the hours of work you put in to improve it.

To me, GPL is an alternative to closed source rather than a true open source license. I use GPL when the quality and continued maintenance of a product is of greater strategic value to me than the monetary value I could get from it when sold. When GPL is violated, the monetary value of that violaton would be the monetary value I could have sold my work for.

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

>It is not copyright. It is a license.

Yeah, see that is why /. is so confused. Let me explain, so you understand why the stronger copyright is, the stronger the GPL is. The right that the license is granting is the copyright. Without the copyright, you don't need the license and can use it for whatever you want.

Source code is protected partially by copyright. The copyright holder has the right to prevent others from using/copying/distributing/performing/etc their work under copyright law. Thus, without copyright, if your source code leaks, there is nothing you can do to prevent others from abusing it to death, because you have no rights against them to stop it. Copyright is your ownership as an author of the source code. Thus, when you distribute it as open source, you usually grant a license that allows others to use your copyright material without fully surrendering your right. Those holdbacks are the conditions of the license. Again, if there is no copyright law of any strength, then I don't need a license to rip off your source code, I can just do it and there is nothing you can do to stop me.

Conversely, if copyrights are all-powerful, then I can't rip off your source code unless I comply exactly with the granted license that gives me limited rights to your copyright.

I sincerely hope that offers some clarity to you, and the others who don't understand copyrights. You can't argue that on one hand, copyright isn't theft when it is downloading an mp3 and listening to it, but then on the other hand, copyright is theft when you "steal" an open source library without following the GPL. They are the same law and rights.

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

>The value isn't in selling exclusivity as it is in profiting from the benefits of software freedom.

Personal valuation is not damages for infringement purposes. If the value is your personal satisfaction of having software freedom, that is nominal damages and the above is correct in saying $0.00.

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

How the heck did this get a score of 2?

The price of GPL software is the source code to the result. If we were talking about building Windows 9 on Linux, that would mean the price for Microsoft to be allowed to distribute the result would be putting the Windows source code under the GPL.

Now you're telling me that because neither part makes any money on the source code, the value of putting the Windows source code (the price demanded) is zero.

Try calling Microsoft, and asking what the price of a world wide, source, modifications allowed, source license for Microsoft would be. If they ever stop laughing, I bet the answer would be "sorry, there isn't enough money on this planet". That's the price being asked for GPL software.

Microsoft understands this. That's why they are very careful about not accidentally using GPL software for anything they don't want opened up.

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL may be an unconventional usage but it requires copyright. If there was no copyright (i.e., all works were public domain), then companies would be able to take code, modify it, and obfuscate it with impunity. We would see the behavior evidenced in the article, in short. In short, RMS would have encountered that same software issue and been in the same boat that caused him to start the FSF (the key difference would have been that it was legal to disassemble the binary).

That is, free (as in libre) software requires legal protection to exist.

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

> Ah, yes. The GPL. The only copyright most readers here defend.

You're right of course, but I sense this is on the wane a bit.

The growing legions of apple fanbois (probably BSD refugees) on here are often enemies of the GPL, equivocating and defending apple's nefarious tactics even if that means using derogatory and misleading terms like "viral," and "restrictive" when talking about copyleft.

Re:they are just bits

[icebraining]

Uh, the GPL doesn't prevent you from making money from the distribution of code, not even by selling it.

Re:they are just bits

[bug1]

people are only interested in what they see as "their Social Group"

People are part only part of social groups that they see as interesting.

Chicken and egg.

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all, the purpose of the GPL is to fight copyright until such a time as it no longer exists, exactly as you state above. If this were the case, RMS would have been able to get the source code to his printer driver, and even if obfuscated, would be able to work with it/find someone to work with it.

Re:they are just bits

[bws111]

How exactly would he be able to get the source code? How does loss of copyright make source code magically appear?

Re:they are just bits

[bws111]

Of course, that is true of many crimes. If you take an apple from a store without paying, is it only theft if it can be proved that the apple would otherwise have been sold? No, of course not. If you tap into your neighbors cable, is it only theft of service if the cable company is now unable to supply another customer? No. If you kill someone, does the punishment vary based on proof of how long the person would otherwise have lived? No.

This is why laws specify specific prohibited actions, not altered potential futures, and the consequences of performing those actions.

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because what is lost to the copyright holder is of no value to the person who takes it, doesn't mean that it isn't stolen.

Value is reduced, but not stolen. Stolen implies the person who reduced the value has to somehow pay back, as they have some sort of obligation or agreement.

The agreement of copyright is between the rights holder and government. The person infringing that copyright is a third party, and may not have any agreement. So there is no obligation or agreement, especially in this case where the people are from another country and don't answer to your government.

The only people you can hold accountable is your government. You can ask your government to go after that third party, but realize that by doing so you're permitting government violence and destruction of individual liberty (of those third parties, who don't have any agreement with you or your government).

No matter how much reform you do, this is what IP boils down to: government forcing everybody to abide by an agreement even if it's against their individual will, even if those individuals don't answer to that government.

Hey, I'm not saying the concept of copyright is wrong or there's no value to it. I just want to remind people what copyright means: trading freedom for security.

Re:they are just bits

[apotheon]

That's because the GPL is essentially the antithesis of copyright, hence that whole "copyleft" thing.

That's only as true as the statement that Democrats are the antithesis of Republicans in the US.

It's essentially a way to fight copyright within the confines of copyright itself.

No -- it's a way to fight certain uses of copyright with other uses of copyright, like a nation of state socialists using nuclear weapons to fight against the use of nuclear weapons by a nation of fascists. A much less paradoxical way to fight copyright would be to choose neither copyright nor copyleft, but copyfree instead.

Re:they are just bits

[apotheon]

I know people have not been extremely explicit about it, but I still managed to figure out there was some reference to reverse engineering and/or decompiling in preceding comments -- something generally disallowed by commercial, closed source copyright licenses.

Re:they are just bits

[apotheon]

probably BSD refugees

I doubt that. In my experience, many more users of Linux as a "desktop" OS started using MacOS than users of BSD Unix for the same purpose. Large numbers of members (as a percentage) of several LUGs with which I've been involved have started using Macs in addition to Linux-based systems, and none of the BSD Unix users I know have made the same migration. In the cases where people who used BSD Unix heavily started using MacOS laptops and desktops, they were people who used BSD Unix heavily for servers, but used Linux-based systems for desktops and laptops, only replacing the Linux in their lives with MacOS, which to me looks like a case of people who used Linux-based systems moving to MacOS, rather than people who used BSD Unix doing so.

I have, however, seen a few people go from Linux-based systems (only) to MacOS+Linux, and from there to MacOS+Linux+BSD, to MacOS+BSD, and finally to BSD Unix (only). Those people have also, I've noticed, generally tended to become more active contributors to open source projects, which I find interesting as a phenomenon. I suspect the only connection MacOS had to the ultimate path of migration was filling a third OS slot, because from what I've seen people who just move from MS Windows to Linux-based systems tend to be very limited in their thinking about operating system options (not as much as those who've always used MS Windows, period, but pretty limited nonetheless), while those who've moved through at least three OS families (pretty much regardless of what families they are) tend to be much more open to regarding the world as something other than a battleground between One True OS and a major competitor or two.

Unlike the legions of copyleftists who tend to describe Apple as some evil entity that can do no right, and never gives anything to open source software communities, many of the people who actually use Macs along with some open source OS realize that Apple not only regularly releases sources for software that uses copyfree or otherwise permissive licenses (e.g. the Darwin OS basis of MacOS), but also takes on maintenance of existing open source projects (e.g. CUPS) and creates new open source software it shares with the world (e.g. LLVM+Clang).

All of this is, of course, not a defense of all the evil Apple does. Malevolence in patent enforcement and suing customers for doing unauthorized things with hardware they bought with their own money is only the tip of the iceberg of stuff that Apple does wrong. It's just silly to make hand-wavy accusations that haven't much basis in truth the way a lot of copyleftists do when there are so many legitimate gripes to have with Apple. It similarly doesn't make any sense for copyleftists to pretend that BSD Unix users choose to defend Apple as a class, or to pretend they use descriptively accurate terms for a license longer than some Microsoft EULAs only as a means of defending Apple.

You go ahead and pretend that the only way anyone could ever disagree with you is by being consciously and irredeemably evil, though. See how far that gets your advocacy efforts.

Re:they are just bits

[bws111]

Yes, but that is still not access to the source code. If decompliing or reverse engineering is the equivalent to having the source code, then why does the GPL require distribution of the source? Instead, the license could just prevent you from disallowing reverse engineering or decompiling. In this case, you could just decompile the whole Linux kernel, and you have the source. Surely that is good enough?

Eliminating copyright would not eliminate the need for the GPL. Source would not magically appear if copyright were eliminated. Even in the absense of copyright source code can still be protected, both by technical means (keep it tightly secured, encrypt it, use a proprietary language to write it, whatever) and legal means (trade secrets, NDAs for anyone seeing it, etc). Eliminating copyright would make the GPL impossible, no matter how people try to spin it.

Re:they are just bits

[bws111]

All that is required for infrigment purposes is the ACT of copying or distributing. And since you can not calculate the 'value' of the harm in any meaningful way (because all of the value is based on either unknown future or personal/human value), the consequences of performing that act have been assigned by statute.

Re:they are just bits

[apotheon]

Copying something that is copyrighted without permission *does* deprive the copyright holder of some of the value behind their copyright.

It only reduces artificial value, because copyright is a mechanism for manufacturing artificial scarcity in support of rent-seeking behavior.

And after all... if the mere right to copy wasn't really of any value to creators, then why would people who bother to make freely distributable works bother to copyright it at all? Why not just put the work into public domain?

Interestingly, that is increasingly becoming the case, as it becomes decreasingly possible to enforce copyright in a cost effective manner. That's a good turn of events, too, because (among other reasons) copyright stifles a lot of creative work that might otherwise flourish.

By the way, it's not "the mere right to copy" that is of value to copyright holders (who are usually not the creators themselves in the case of commercially profitable works) -- it's the enforced prohibition on copying imposed on the rest of the world that is of value to them.

Just because what is lost to the copyright holder is of no value to the person who takes it, doesn't mean that it isn't stolen.

You do not seem to understand the meaning of the term "stolen". Stealing is appropriating something for oneself by removing it from someone else, an act that has meaning only for rivalrous goods. When you talk about "stealing" in this context, you basically have three options for what you are saying is stolen. One is a physical representation or medium for a work, in which case what is stolen has nothing to do with copyright itself (as in the case of a meatspace dead-tree book, or of a physical optical medium like a CD regardless of what is stored on it). Another is the work itself, in the abstract, in which case it is non-rivalrous and can only be copied, not "stolen", thus increasing the wealth of the world through essentially cost-free replication. The third is the "value" of the work under circumstances of artificial scarcity, where some enforcement of circumstances of scarcity is imposed on a market where scarcity effectively has no natural meaning, but as you pointed out the value itself is not transferred in this act you describe as "stealing"; the recipient may not have the same value in the work that the copyright holder previously had. The closest you could reasonably get (at least if you try to be rational, honest, and consistent about it) to theft in the case of a wholly subjective sense of value is vandalism -- not stealing.

Re:they are just bits

[apotheon]

I think the point the previous coward meant to make (though made the effort in terms of "freedom" rather than actual economic effects of commercial activity using the GPL as leverage, which is understandably confusing) is that copyleft licenses create anticompetitive benefits for the copyright holder in that various business models built on holding copyright on copyleft licensed software creates asymmetries with recipients of the software in question. A common case is maintaining a public open source project with copyright assignment for all contributions, offering the software under a copyleft license, then producing commercial closed source "value added products" of some kind, as MySQL AB did with MySQL's multi-licensing scheme before Sun bought the company and all its assets. This sets any would-be competitors using the copyleft codebase of the software at a disadvantage, because their modifications have to be made public and, to take advantage of continuing development of the original codebase, they then have to either expend significant resources on continuous re-merging of custom modifications (which can be specifically targeted for manufactured incompatibility by the copyright holder of the original codebase, making that re-merging more expensive, because of the necessarily public nature of the competitor's modifications) or contribute their improvements to the project maintained for the original codebase by the copyright holder, complete with copyright assignment, so that the copyright holder can then incorporate those improvements into its own closed source "value added product". The upshot, then, is that I do not believe the lost value to which the previous coward meant to refer was limited to a feeling of warmth and fuzziness for altruistic sharing, even if altruism is part of his product's marketing.

Many opportunities for using copyleft licenses as leverage in anticompetitive business practices exist, and any violation of the copyleft license in those business models may then have a negative effect on the profitability of the copyright holder's business model, which could then be argued in court to constitute damages.

(I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, et cetera, et cetera, et alii, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, insert further disclaimers here.)

Re:they are just bits

[apotheon]

The point made wasn't about whether you could make money on the software -- it was about whether violating the license causes any quantifiable damages according to the law. While there may be a reasonable argument that the $0 statement is wrong, your argument wasn't it. I don't even think it was relevant.

Re:they are just bits

[mark-t]

It only reduces artificial value, because copyright is a mechanism for manufacturing artificial scarcity in support of rent-seeking behavior.

Fallacy.

If that were true, there would be no merit to copyrighting source code that a person decides to make freely available, whether under the GPL or BSD licenses.

If the only value from copyright came from monetary inducement, then for material that is supposed to be free, there is no advantage to it over public domain. Yet the majority of freely released works are not issued under public domain. They are copyrighted.

You have been deluded into thinking that money is the only measure of worth or value. It is not. It is merely a very objective one.

Re:they are just bits

[mark-t]

If value is reduced, then it stands to reason that it is *THAT* amount of value that has been stolen.... not all of it, obviously.

The disconnect comes from the fact that the "value" that is stolen is not actually of any value to anybody except the copyright holder.

Again... just because that is the case, does not mean it cannot be stolen.

Do not conflate the issues of value and financial worth. They are not the same thing. If they were, nobody would bother GPL'ing their software or putting under a BSD or MIT license, or any of the dozens of free source code licenses that exist. they would instead just put it into public domain. Clearly the copy control that copyright offers has some amount of worth to the person who holds that right which has absolutely squat to do with financial incentive.

Re:they are just bits

[sumdumass]

You wouldn't need to get that convoluted. All you need to show is if the copyright violation had happened without a violation of the copyright, that the copyright owner would have gained something of value.

Suppose I went into my garage and a bicycle fairy had packed it full of bicycles. I decide to rent them out at $80 a pop for as long as you wanted to use them and didn't care about the condition they were returned in or if they were ever returned- you could rent a bike for the rest of your life and pass the rental down to your grandchildren. Now, if you take a bicycle without paying the rental fee, even though the bicycle fairy will replace it, am I not out $80 from your use of the bike? If you violate my copyright, am I not out at minimum what I would be owed for the use of the copyright? If you didn't rent the bicycle, I wouldn't have made more, but because you took it without paying the rental, I have made less. It is the same with copyright violations.

Re:they are just bits

[apotheon]

It's worth highlighting this as the best argument I've heard for GPL violation being translatable into monetary damages so far. I have a vague recollection of some kind of precedent that established the GPL as being enforceable in civil court through damages, but don't recall the specifics. Regardless of those specifics, though, your explanation is pretty damned cogent, I think.

Re:they are just bits

[apotheon]

Copyright license cases (as with GPL violations) are not about theft. They're about damages. This is why an apple theft would be a criminal case, but a GPL violation would be a civil case.

Re:they are just bits

[bws111]

Nope. Copyright violations are violations of a specific law, with penalties for that violation set down in the law. No damages need to be proven, only that a certain prohibited act was committed. Just like with theft. The only thing you have right is that it would be handled in civil court, thus shifting the burden of prosecuting the case to the infringed party instead of the state.

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

If value is reduced, then it stands to reason that it is *THAT* amount of value that has been stolen

No it does not stand to reason. Value can be reduced (or even increased) without being stolen

Knowledge, technology, or even acts of nature can reduce (or increase) the value of things. Digital photography reduced the value of film photography. A person gaining useful education, skills, and knowledge increases his value to employers. Hot summer months increase the value of air conditioning while decreasing value of heaters

The disconnect comes from the fact that the "value" that is stolen is not actually of any value to anybody except the copyright holder.

Again... just because that is the case, does not mean it cannot be stolen.

No, that is precisely why value being reduced does not equate to value being stolen. Whether value increased or decreased is in the eye of the beholder. It's perception. It's arbitrary.

Consider that I have copyright on my post. I can now charge you for "stealing" from me for reading it. Why? Just because! It's my perception, I get to decide what my perception is for whatever reason I want (or no reason at all), and my perception says you stole, so you stole!

Do not conflate the issues of value and financial worth.

Nothing I said conflates the two. Value is not financial wroth (money), but value reduced is not value stolen.

It is only in the perspective of the copyright holder (and his government) that value is stolen. From an outside perspective, value is merely reduced.

In this case, the Chinese guys are that outside perspective. They do not have to answer to your perceptions of what stealing is.

Clearly the copy control that copyright offers has some amount of worth to the person who holds that right which has absolutely squat to do with financial incentive.

I never said otherwise. I'm just saying if a third party's actions led to a reduction in that value, it's not "stealing". It's only in your perception that it is, and to support copyright law is to allow government to use force, override and destroy the freedoms of other people (those other people have to abide by your perceptions, instead of being free to pursue their own)

Re:they are just bits

[mark-t]

I'm just saying if a third party's actions led to a reduction in that value, it's not "stealing".

If there's a reduction in value, then that value is lost to the person who once had it, and in the case of copyright infringement, that reduction is not merely caused by the infringement, but the actual act of infringing itself, since the act of infringing on copyright directly compromises exclusivity, which is the thing which is of value to the copyright holder.

Again... the disconnect happens because what is of value to the copyright holder is worthless to the person who is taking it... and is why it is so easy to discount the notion that anything was ever stolen in the first place. This is, however, only rationalizing, whose purpose serves probably little more than to make people who do such things feel less guilty about it.

Re:they are just bits

[viperidaenz]

It kind of does. If I buy software from you that is GPL licensed you're not allowed to stop me distributing it. If I sell it, you're not allowed to ask for a cut.

If you didn't give me the source code when I bought your software you must provide it for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's a reduction in value, then that value is lost to the person who once had it, and in the case of copyright infringement, that reduction is not merely caused by the infringement, but the actual act of infringing itself, since the act of infringing on copyright directly compromises exclusivity, which is the thing which is of value to the copyright holder.

...none of which is stealing. Causation does not imply theft. Did mother nature "steal" from air conditioner makers by making winters cold?

Again...

Again... you are wrong. There is no disconnect. I make no contrary claims that value is only in the eyes of the beholder (copyright holder, or person taking it)

My reasons for it not being theft does not rely on this disconnect (or lack thereof). I do not feel like repeating myself, you can go back and reread my earlier posts

This is, however, only rationalizing, whose purpose serves probably little more than to make people who do such things feel less guilty about it.

No, it is YOU who is rationalizing and trying to label a crime onto others - others who do not share your perceptions not are they obligated to share it, just so YOU feel better to allow your government to go around forcing people to abide by your perceptions of reality.

Re:they are just bits

[mark-t]

You may as well be suggesting that if I were to somehow siphon some money from a person's bank account and redirect it elsewhere, because I have merely "lowered" their financial worth, I haven't stolen anything.

Of course it's BS... I stole whatever I took. Nothing less and nothing more.

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

You may as well be suggesting that if I were to somehow siphon some money from a person's bank account and redirect it elsewhere, because I have merely "lowered" their financial worth, I haven't stolen anything.

That's a strawman. There's obviously value to both me and you (or that somebody) that the money has value. If I steal that money from you, I deprive you of that value and in return I gain that value

But in the case of copyright, well, even you admit that there's a difference in perception of value between the right holder and one reducing its value. If I reduce your copyright value, I didn't "gain" any copyright value myself.

Let's have a car analogy: car insurance. Copyright is like car insurance. Suppose we get into an accident. Your premiums go up (doesn't matter who's at fault, they're insurance companies). Obviously I caused your premiums to go up, but I didn't steal from you, nor am I obligated to pay for that increase in premiums for you.

The most I'll pay (if I'm at fault) is the tangible damages to your person and/or your car from the accident, not to your insurance premiums. That's the financial worth (which I never confused but you kept thinking there's some sort of disconnect)

Now of course, in the case of copyright infringement, I didn't hit your car at all, I just made a copy of it (using my own tools and materials btw). So copyright is like car insurance where your premiums go up the more people drive the same type/model of car as yours (which if you put it that way, makes copyright look kinda stupid... honestly I didn't want to do that, I originally just want to point out that copyright is government using violence to destroy individual freedoms to enforce a particular set of perspective on what "stealing" is)

Re:they are just bits

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't possibly prove the holder loses something.

There's a lot of things you can't prove, you can't prove the existence or validity of religion yet religious nutbags dominate the general population.

To be able to say that, you would have to prove that if this specific copyright violation haven't take place the holder would earn more, which you can't.

Why would you have to prove it?

Re:they are just bits

[Raenex]

If decompliing or reverse engineering is the equivalent to having the source code, then why does the GPL require distribution of the source?

Absolutely. Stallman and the FSF demand source code:

"In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated "source code" is not real source code and does not count as source code."

Eliminating copyright would make the GPL impossible, no matter how people try to spin it.

Stallman said so himself:

"So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years? [..] Thus, the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source code, not after 5 years or even 50 years. The Free World would get the bad, but not the good. The difference between source code and object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright -- one that free software does not share."

Re:they are just bits

[mark-t]

...I deprive you of that value and in return I gain that value

Whether the taker gains an equal value to what the person being taken from lost does not change whether or not it was still taken without permission. A child can steal money from their parents' purse because they like playing with paper. Completely different value systems are involved, yet there's no disputing that it was still stolen.

Of course, things like money in somebody's purse are tangible... and if you're going to argue that intangible things cannot be stolen, then I'm not really equipped to dispute that.

My point was only that if you define theft as the unauthorized deprivation of something from its owner, then copyright infringement does, indeed, amount to the theft of something. Suggesting that the copyright holder still has just as much exclusive control over who can copy their works when somebody else copies their works without permission as they did before blindly ignores the definition of "exclusive"... which is what makes copyright valuable in the first place.

Re:they are just bits

[apotheon]

I didn't say reverse engineering was the same as getting the source code. I pointed out that you were ignoring what others had said about reverse engineering.

Eliminating copyright wouldn't eliminate the "need" for the GPL -- it would just eliminate the ability to place many systematic restrictions on what people can do with things they possess (including the restrictions in the GPL).

By the way, saying that eliminating copyright would make the GPL impossible in the tone of a doomsayer is kind of silly, considering I would rather the GPL (and all other copyleft licenses) just went away. The last thing we need is more restriction in the name of "freedom".

Re:they are just bits

[apotheon]

It only reduces artificial value, because copyright is a mechanism for manufacturing artificial scarcity in support of rent-seeking behavior.

Fallacy.

I'm not sure you understand that word.

If that were true, there would be no merit to copyrighting source code that a person decides to make freely available, whether under the GPL or BSD licenses.

If the only value from copyright came from monetary inducement, then for material that is supposed to be free, there is no advantage to it over public domain. Yet the majority of freely released works are not issued under public domain. They are copyrighted.

The fact you do not understand how copyright law works internationally, or how people benefit from various licensing models, is a failure in your argument, and not in mine. Some businesses use copyleft licenses to establish anticompetitive advantages over their competitors, to say nothing of the fact that there are many people who simply don't understand what the hell they're doing with licensing and as such end up using restrictive "free" licensing to serve ends that are actually undercut by their own license choices. Then, of course, there's the fact that something released into the public domain in the US (which hasn't really been comprehensively tested in court, as far as I'm aware, and the laws on the books that I've seen are hopelessly vague about that, but let's just assume it works) is not considered public domain in France, where the law does not recognize the power of individual people to release a copyrighted work into the public domain before the expiration of its copyright -- which is why SQLite, a supposedly public domain piece of software, still gets $1000 licensing deals in some countries for people who don't want to be sued when they use it.

That's pretty much the whole reason that copyfree licenses (including the Unlicense and CC0 License) exist.

You have been deluded into thinking that money is the only measure of worth or value. It is not. It is merely a very objective one.

Uh, no, I haven't. I fully recognize that there are things of worth other than money. In fact, I probably know better than you that the crap people tend to call "money" isn't even worth the ink in the bills. This does not change the fact that the courts measure the worth of something in a civil suit by its measurable dollar "value", which means that if you cannot attach a dollar value to something you aren't going to get anything in a lawsuit beyond statutory damages, which usually costs less than buying a license anyway -- and that assumes there are even any statutory damages for the case in question.

I'm really not sure why, but you've responded for some reason as though my commentary about artificial scarcity was a statement that the only way to measure the value of something is with dollars. That's absurd and, frankly, kinda irrelevant to my point. Perhaps you'd like to try again.

Re:they are just bits

[apotheon]

I think you're confusing statutory damages with the kinds of penalties applied to criminal cases. If there are penalties, apart from those that must be specifically shown to have occurred by way of evidence in court, that is because they were specified by statute (thus the term "statutory damages"). This is not always the way it works, though; it depends on the specific violation committed. Sometimes (often, in fact) there simply are not any statutory damages for a particular violation -- and statutory damages are often less costly than buying a commercial license, so it's often a win just to have gotten statutory damages assessed rather than playing by the rules all along. Of course, that mostly only applies in cases where the license violation is not itself shown to be measurably damaging, because otherwise damages can be assessed above statutory damages. This is why the GPL (along with other restrictive "free" licenses) is kinda special when it comes to enforcement -- because it can be violated by the licensee, but does not have an easily applied standard for determining damages due to the fact there is no cost for the license, which is offered freely to the public.

Meanwhile, theft lands you in jail. It's a different ball of wax entirely. Ultimately, the difference is that civil cases are about damages -- a fact that leads to the possibility of someone being acquitted of a murder charge in a criminal court case, then found guilty of wrongful death in a civil court case, where the penalty assessed is . . . wait for it . . . damages.

At least, that's the case in the US, as far as I'm aware. Where are you located?

Popular?

[the_humeister]

More popular than Cyanogenmod? As popular? Less popular? I've never heard of this thing. Must be popular in China.

Re:Popular?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a fork of Cynogenmod, with better skins and themes. I dont think they have any kernel modifications to share.

Re:Popular?

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks and behaves similar to iOS. Seems laggy though, even on my Razr Maxx.

Re:Popular?

[CritterNYC]

It's a Cyanogenmod fork designed to look like iOS. It's been in violation of the GPL since its very first release. MIUI users always try and minimize the fact that it's basically illegal software.

Re:Popular?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Xiaomi was launched last year to great applause in China. It was lauded as an original Chinese innovation in smartphones, the company was great, CEO smart, etc. I almost bought one myself, but decided I couldn't live without a physical keyboard (HTC Desire Z). They're coming out with a new phone soon.

It's not that they are being selfish by refusing to share. It simply has never occurred to anyone at the company that there might be rules to follow and a community to participate in. To Chinese, IP is just something that may be freely copied by anyone, slightly modified, and released as your own (when it is no longer OK to copy it, naturally). Ten feet from where I am sitting right now, a man is watching videos of packaging machines in operation and drawing the mechanisms on a CAD program. He is in the R&D department.

Re:Popular?

[vivtho]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as he's only replicating the operation of the machine and not its internal working, isn't he just reverse-engineering the machine? AFAIK reverse-engineering is legitimate in the eyes of the law.

Re:Popular?

[msauve]

"reverse-engineering is legitimate in the eyes of the law."

Not if the device uses something which is patented. That holds, even if the "new" one is developed completely independently.

Re:Popular?

[Baloroth]

DNS-and-BIND specified the mechanisms, which I assume means the internal workings. It might not even be illegal in the US to do that anyways (IANAL, I don't know, but seems like unless it is patented you can copy it), mind you, it just illustrates that some Chinese consider that "research".

Re:Popular?

[Luckyo]

Strange, patenting software is only legally allowed in what, three countries in the world? China is most certainly not one of them. Why should they care about it any more then a US woman cares about getting stoned for adultery?

Re:Popular?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Who cares about the legal niceties? To him, and the company, he is engaged in legitimate research and development. While there is always something to be learned from your competitors, in China the balance is way out of whack. At the end of the day, ask him if he spent his time ripping off a foreign company's hard work or developing new, fresh Chinese indigenously produced technology. Go ahead, guess what his answer will be.

Re:Popular?

[tobiasly]

Ten feet from where I am sitting right now, a man is watching videos of packaging machines in operation and drawing the mechanisms on a CAD program. He is in the R&D department.

Using a fully licensed copy of AutoCAD, no doubt.

Re:Popular?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mechanical Desktop most likely.

Re:Popular?

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting high and cheating sounds awesome to me!

Re:Popular?

[thegarbz]

I would say pretty damn popular. It's not as popular as Cyanogenmod, but it works on a wide range of devices and is probably second place in terms of custom roms for android supporting many devices

Re:Popular?

[somersault]

The GPL isn't enforced via patents, it's enforced via copyright.

So you can copy software concepts in most countries if you want - but if you copy someone else's actual source code, that's illegal by default. They have to make the code available under an open license before you are allowed to copy/distribute it.

Re:Popular?

[Anonymous Coward]

>He is in the R&D department.
Yes, he is researching the competition, and developing a clone.

Re:Popular?

[apotheon]

The guy in the example was reverse engineering a physical device, not a piece of software. The point was that "IP" was not respected much in China, and potential patent violations with regard to machinery fits that just as well as potential GPL violations with regard to software.

Re:Popular?

[Raenex]

Ten feet from where I am sitting right now, a man is watching videos of packaging machines in operation and drawing the mechanisms on a CAD program. He is in the R&D department.

Research and development generally involves looking at what others have done before you. What comes out of it depends on how much you want to innovate or tweak for your own needs.

Petitioning China?

[FSWKU]

You go ahead and sign that online petition to "force" a Chinese company to play fair. Hope you have better success than the hundreds of other companies from whom Chinese businesses have taken what they liked and given nothing back...

Re:Petitioning China?

[Baloroth]

For that matter, it probably isn't even illegal in China (do they have a copyright agreement with the US? Seems unlikely), which looks to be the only place they make phones with it pre-loaded, so unless the FOSS people want to block people outside China from downloading it (which I, personally, would find deeply ironic), I don't think they even have any legal grounding whatsoever.

Re:Petitioning China?

[bug1]

do they have a copyright agreement with the US?

So we need permission from the US to enforce international copyright agreements now ?

Re:Petitioning China?

[MrNaz]

RIAA says not only yes to that, but that sufficiently wealthy private parties have the RIGHT to demand that the US enforce their copyright for them.

Re:Petitioning China?

[Anonymous Coward]

do they have a copyright agreement with the US?

So we need permission from the US to enforce international copyright agreements now ?

I doubt it, but you might need china to agree to give a crap before this could possibly mean anything.

Re:Petitioning China?

[flimflammer]

Does China give a flying fuck about international copyright agreements? History has said no, thus far.

What possible "enforcement" can be levied against China for this?

Re:Petitioning China?

[Voyager529]

What possible "enforcement" can be levied against China for this?

"Respect our copyrights or we'll borrow less money!"

China 3

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyrights? Patents? License?

LOL

Re:China 3

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean copylights, patents, and ricense. Those aren't quite the same things and don't fall under US jurisdiction. ;-)

Re:China 3

[crutchy]

ricenses only apply in north korea

Re:Fundamental Misunderstanding of GPL

[Todd Knarr]

Not correct, at least not for the version of the GPL in question. Read the GPL v2 and look at section 3 which covers distribution. Your options:

• 3a: Distribute the source code along with the binaries. Using this option you only have to provide source to your customers.
• 3b: Distribute the source code separate from the binaries. This option explicitly requires you to make the offer of source available to any third party, regardless of whether they received binaries from you or not.
• 3c: Pass on the offer you received. This is only available for non-commercial distribution, so a company selling phones or software wouldn't qualify to use it.

You'd be correct for GPL v3, but the Linux kernel license lacks the "or any later version" language so v3's off the table as far as the kernel as a whole is concerned.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you force someone to comply with this? Just curious if anyone has ever been forced to release their source code in the past successfully, and the fact that they are based in China as well makes this even less chance this will happen I would think.

Why rattle the saber? Are they day dreaming?

[bogaboga]

From the linked article: -

Android Community Demands MIUI ROM Comply With FOSS Licenses

Question: Who exactly is the Android Community? Is it Google? Is it the folks at XDA? This statement is just confusing and vague!

Unless Xiaomi intends to develop a replacement for the Linux kernel, they need to make their modifications public."

What can the authors of the above statement really do? Sue the Xiaomi folks? Impose sanctions on China if it fails to toe the line?

Good luck with that!

Re:Why rattle the saber? Are they day dreaming?

[idontgno]

I think the righteous indignation and enhanced NEEERRRRRD RRRRAAAGE of dozens* of Android hackers will bring Xiaomi right around.

*"dozens" == more than 23. That's probably a safe guess.

Cyanogen fork

[aaron552]

IIRC, it's a fork of Cyanogenmod, and (the non-Android part of) CM is also GPL, so they'd have to also distribute the modifications to CM. This, I think, is the larger infringement that people are annoyed about?

If they haven't changed it...

[viperidaenz]

If they haven't made kernel modifications, they don't have to release their source code, just host a mirror of the original source.

It's also China and since when was copyright followed in China?

Re:If they haven't changed it...

[msauve]

"If they haven't made kernel modifications, they don't have to release their source code, just host a mirror of the original source."

If they haven't made kernel modifications, in exactly what way isn't "their source" the "original source," and what is the distinction you're drawing?

Re:If they haven't changed it...

[viperidaenz]

When I said "their source" I was referring to the source code for MIUI. The "Android Community" (read: a minority group of vocal freetards) wants to force Xiaomi into open-sourcing the entire project.

Re:If they haven't changed it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong - but the summary doesn't make that clear. TFA clearly says "they need to release their kernel modifications".

Re:If they haven't changed it...

[mcgrew]

Mods, any time someone uses the term "freetards" it's flamebait. No nerd would use that term, only a salesman or marketer or MBA. As this is (or at least used to be) a predominantly Linux-driven site, it's also a troll. Please mod the parent to oblivion.

Thank you.

Oh, and I'm offtopic, mod me down as well.

viperidaenz, fuck you and the expensive OS you rode in on, dickweed.

Re:If they haven't changed it...

[viperidaenz]

Since when was Debian an expensive OS?

Re:If they haven't changed it...

[viperidaenz]

OpenMIUI.com doesn't make that distinction clear.

Android mod world

[Rotten]

Android mod world (modded roms, cyanogen forks, custom kernels, etc) has tons of examples like this. People who distributes compiled kernels and refuses to share their patches because that way they would "loose" their "exclusive l33t" kernel, since some other modder/coder may "steal" their job (which is basically some minor editing or patch merging on top of a real kernel...samsung kernel for example...plus 10 lines of code to make something happen).

Re:Android mod world

[Anonymous Coward]

*lose

Re:Android mod world

[MikeBabcock]

Yes and they're complete idiots for ignoring how much of the original work they got for free because of that same license and how many thousands of people lost their 'leet' exclusivity themselves to get them this far.

Re:Android mod world

[Anonymous Coward]

Android mod world (modded roms, cyanogen forks, custom kernels, etc) has tons of examples like this. People who distributes compiled kernels and refuses to share their patches because that way they would "loose" their "exclusive l33t" kernel, since some other modder/coder may "steal" their job (which is basically some minor editing or patch merging on top of a real kernel...samsung kernel for example...plus 10 lines of code to make something happen).

And the value they place on it varies inversely with the amount of work done.

Re:Android mod world

[Hal_Porter]

Maybe he means loose as in 'set loose'.

Re:Fundamental Misunderstanding of GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Mikrotik is the worst (Blatently disregards the GPL by distributing binaries publically but charging $45 everytime you want a source drop).

They do indeed, and the blurb is simply wrong.

[Arker]

Unless Xiaomi intends to develop a replacement for the Linux kernel, they need to make their modifications public."

No. It doesnt matter what they intend. They still have to make their modifications public regardless.

Re:They do indeed, and the blurb is simply wrong.

[Baloroth]

No. It doesnt matter what they intend. They still have to make their modifications public regardless.

Not if they write a new kernel and don't use any source from the previous one. Of course, they would still have to release source for the kernels they have already distributed.

Re:They do indeed, and the blurb is simply wrong.

[Arker]

It doesnt matter what they intend. They have shipped modified kernels and they must release those, period.

Of course, they would still have to release source for the kernels they have already distributed.

Exactly what I was saying. The ones they have shipped, the ones they are now shipping, and the ones they will ship in the future. If they 'intend' to do something different later, that changes nothing and matters not at all.

Re:They do indeed, and the blurb is simply wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or else what? If nobody who actually has the authority to sue them does so, then they don't have to do anything at all. Historically, many cases of GPL violation have been resolved simply by stopping distribution, with no subsequent release of any modifications.

Re:They do indeed, and the blurb is simply wrong.

[Pieroxy]

Usually, when a company (or a person) violates the GPL they are asked to either release the source code or remove all GPL code from their product. So for instance if they decided to drop their proprietary implementation tomorrow in favor of something else nobody would follow up on the GPL violation.

Granted, it's not to the letter what is in the GPL, but that's how these things usually pan out.

Re:They do indeed, and the blurb is simply wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

So go get them:

https://github.com/MiCode

Re:They do indeed, and the blurb is simply wrong.

[petermgreen]

My understanding is that it not generally the case.

The key thing to remember is that the GPL is a license to copy a copyrighted work. If a copier fails to comply with the GPL they have no valid license to copy and have therefore committed copyright infringement. They are liable for damages for that infringement and they can be served with an injunction to stop the infringing copying (and in theory I beleive criminal penalties could also apply in some jurisdictions) but afaict they cannot be forced to release the source.

Of course generally it's in everyones interests to settle and releasing the source code is likely to be part of that settlement

Re:Fundamental Misunderstanding of GPL

[Qubit]

GPL does NOT, I repeat, does NOT require PUBLIC release of derivative works. It only requires disclosure to the actual users of the software.

It is perfectly legal to create a derivative work of a GPL work and release the source code to the product users under NDA, forbidding public disclosure.

Let's look at the FAQ for the GPL...

Does The GPL Allow NDA?

Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement?

No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis. If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered software copyrighted by the FSF, please inform us immediately by writing to license-violation@fsf.org. If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL.

Re:Only Aspergers nigger cunts use Linux

[Gaygirlie]

over my little pony toys.

Why do you collect small pony toys, and why do you let him ejaculate over them in the first place? :o

Re:Fundamental Misunderstanding of GPL

[MikeBabcock]

You're correct up to the NDA part. The GPL however requires that I give all the same rights I had to the software to the person I distribute it to. You can't remove rights you received via the GPL.

So I give my binaries to one person, I owe that one person the source, nobody else, but that person can then do whatever they want with both just like I could.

Value != Money...

[IBitOBear]

I can tell you are not a laywer, but even you should know that "value" doesn't mean "money". For instance, everything that is valuable that is not money, such as the things one trades money for, are themselves valuable.

So too are intangables valuable. For instance, you pay for the right (within limits) to determin who is allowed to access the contents of your house, apartment, and/or other real property. This is the same as how one might buy a mambership to a club so that one receives the right to enter the premises of owned by that club.

So a copyright is "valuable" as it allows the owner of that right to say how many of that thing may be brought into existence and under what circumstances.

When someone brings more of those things into existence than the owner wishes to allow, or does so in a way the owner doesn't wish to allow, they owners valuable right is diminished by misuse.

Much the way I might diminsih the value of any of your properties by misuse (like by ruining your carpet or driving your car into a ravine).

These are not difficult concepts, and many times as you grew to this age, you experienced a diminishment of yoru intangibles. Every time you ever said "That's Not Fair" and no cash was involved, you experienced circumstantial devaluation enough to prompt outcry.

Re:Value != Money...

[phantomfive]

Wow, nice explanation.

Re:Value != Money...

[Anonymous Coward]

> For instance, everything that is valuable that is not money, such as the things one trades money for, are themselves valuable.

I can tell you are not a lawyer. You should know that personal value and intangible benefits are not measured for damages. Remuneration is measured in dollars, or specific behavior that is not an involuntary servitude. The personal benefits and satisfactions that are intangible are not rewarded under either contract damages nor copyright statute.

If you disagree, please cite where you think this is incorrect in Title 35.

Re:Value != Money...

[gpmanrpi]

Title 35 is for Patents. Title 17 is for Copyright, and Chapter 5 is for infringement. Assuming, the ludicrous well its free calculation of damages would hold up in any court, which it would not, there is a statutory damages clause for just this reason. I will quote the statutory damages section for you just to shut this ridiculous line of log logic up 17 USC 5 (c) Statutory Damages (1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work. (2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in section 118 (f)) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work. (3) (A) In a case of infringement, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the infringement was committed willfully for purposes of determining relief if the violator, or a person acting in concert with the violator, knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement. (B) Nothing in this paragraph limits what may be considered willful infringement under this subsection. (C) For purposes of this paragraph, the term “domain name” has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes” approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the “Trademark Act of 1946”; 15 U.S.C. 1127). (d) Additional Damages in Certain Cases.— In any case in which the court finds that a defendant proprietor of an establishment who claims as a defense that its activities were exempt under section 110 (5) did not have reasonable grounds to believe that its use of a copyrighted work was exempt under such section, the plaintiff shall be entitled to, in addition to any award of damages under this section, an additional award of two times the amount of the license fee that the proprietor of the establishment concerned should have paid the plaintiff for such use during the preceding period of up to 3 years. These can be awarded per infringement (See RIAA garbage) ALSO I am a lawyer. joe

Re:Value != Money...

[gpmanrpi]

That formatted marvelously

Re:Value != Money...

[Pieroxy]

Very nice explanation. Another analogy might be violation of privacy.

Let's say you are retired. Someone takes a pic of you taking a poop and displays it publicly in your town. You lost no money in the process. Have you lost nothing?

Re:Value != Money...

[fredprado]

Again, you can only prove that there was a loss if you can prove that after the unauthorized copy is made and there is one more the value really dropped, that is, the money the original owner can make diminished. You can't do it either, no matter how much you want to believe you can.

So, no, you are just wrong. Value is money in the end.

Re:Value != Money...

[bws111]

So are you saying that your child's life has no value to you, or that your child can be replaced with money? Both of those statements are (hopefully) equally stupid.

Money is sometimes used as a (poor) substitute to make up for lost value, but saying that money is value is just stupid.

Re:Value != Money...

[fredprado]

The life of my children is certainly very valuable to me, but I not so much as valuable to you. Anything can have some arbitrary abstract value to anyone, but in the end, the only real way of objectively measuring it is with money.

Re:Value != Money...

[bws111]

OK, so you answered half of my question - your child is valuable to you, which is as it should be. But now for the second half of the question - can your child be replaced with money?

When someone's house is destroyed, what do you most often hear them say? They aren't bemoaning the loss of wood and bricks, or even a place to live. Insurance can fix those things with money. What they are most sad about is the loss of stuff that had great value to them, and which can not be replaced with money. Photographs of their parents, their grandmothers china set, the marks on the wall where they measured their children, a pet. Those things have enormous human value and zero monetary value. They can not be measured, 'objectively' or otherwise, with money.

While 'conversion to money' sometimes is directly useful for making up for a loss, it is also useful as punishment for the person causing the loss, even when the loss itself can not be replaced.

Re:Value != Money...

[Anonymous Coward]

But now for the second half of the question - can your child be replaced with money?

I don't know about GP, but if you look at history, it is not unheard of for (poor) parents to sell their children. And if you talk about children of other people, as in human trafficking, slavery etc., then there's definitely a market even today.

And the money that is exchanged doesn't not care for human value. Technically you are correct, but for practical purposes the GP is correct

Those things have enormous human value and zero monetary value. They can not be measured, 'objectively' or otherwise, with money.

Sure, but none of those things need to be "repaid" (nor can they) by the insurance company or any other third party. The insurance company can't bring your grandma's precious photo back, and you can't reasonably fault them for that.

So in the case of copyright, this "value" that was "stolen" does not need to be compensated (you can't anyway). At most maybe you pay monetary costs, like electricity bills that it took to copy those bits (but that would be in cents and fractions of cents, not tens of thousands of dollars as copyright math may say)

While 'conversion to money' sometimes is directly useful for making up for a loss, it is also useful as punishment for the person causing the loss, even when the loss itself can not be replaced.

I disagree. There is no objective measure on how much monetary punishment is enough for non-monetary (human value) damage.

Monetary punishment is useful for monetary damages. You damage something for $X, you pay back maybe twice as much.

Monetary punishment is not useful for human value damages, how do you pay "twice as much" of that? Or is twice as much not enough? How much is enough? It's a slippery slope.

Re:Value != Money...

[apotheon]

I thought we were talking about the enforceability of the license in court, not whether you wanted your children to die.

Re:Value != Money...

[bws111]

I don't know why you thought that, since this entire thread contains no reference to enforceability in court. It does, on the other hand, contain discussion on whether all value can be expressed as money or not, and whether or not things that have no monetary value can still be valuable.

Re:Value != Money...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you just bother posting the infringement statute that doesn't support your thesis for damages?

If you read carefully, you will see that either it is calculated damages, or statutory fixed damages. There is no provision for the personal valuation of your copyright, and diminished value! This is exactly what I was saying (sorry for accidentally saying 35, not title 17, it was late). You will also note that under patent law (35 USC 271) there is also NO provision for damages based on personal valuation, it is either calculated or treble calculated.

Cutting and pasting the statute isn't going to win your baseless claim. No judge is going to swallow a copy-pasta without a proper backing argument explaining why you think it applies.

Re:Value != Money...

[Anonymous Coward]

The life of my children is certainly very valuable to me, but I not so much as valuable to you. Anything can have some arbitrary abstract value to anyone, but in the end, the only real way of objectively measuring it is with money.

Ok, if that's true then let's have it, objectively measure the value of your children in terms of money, what's the value?

Re:Value != Money...

[fredprado]

That is a good question. What is their value for me? And for you? For the government? For society? Because, you know, the government is not there to make laws to prioritize my notion of value over yours, or over the notion of value of everybody else.

If you measure the value of their values by the money I would be ready to pay to preserve their lives it would probably be all the money I have and everything I could get my hands on by legal or illegal means, including any money the lives of your children could get me. I doubt that you would put a similar value onto my children, though, and I doubt the government would either.

So when measuring value we need a common ground. Something objectively defined that has nothing to do with the subjective value a single individual put at things, and the best tool we have to objectively measure value is money.

So were I a government I would measure the objective value of lives by their age against their expectancy of life, their current lifestyle and expectancy of income to their families and an additional amount for the families to compensate for monetary losses due to emotional distress. That is the monetary loss, as good as any extrapolation can make it, and that is not very far from what courts do throughout the World.

Re:Value != Money...

[IBitOBear]

I'm glad you can tell I am not a lawyer. I forgot to mention it. /doh

Renumeration is not the be-all nor end-all of value.

I discuss the concept of value outside of monetary value. Again you miss the part where Value != Money, even though you leave it as the actual subject line.

Re:Value != Money...

[apotheon]

When fredprado said "the money the original owner can make diminished" he was talking about enforceability of a license in court, because pretty much all the courts can do in a civil case (like a license enforcement case) is either award damages or issue an injunction.

So . . . the reason I thought that is that it was true.

Pretty much

[Immerman]

I believe only one or two cases have actually made it to court - the vast majority of GPL violators voluntarily release their modified code once somebody complains to them and their legal department takes a look at the license. So yeah, so long as there's a strong legal framework to work in they can be "forced" - the penalties for bald-faced copyright violation are simply too high for a company to bear - especially if they want to continue distributing their product. Think of the outrageous threats made by the RIAA based on the skimpiest of evidence, then imagine they actually had rock-solid evidence of violations and that you're a company with deep enough pockets to actually pay the full amount. Those laws were after all originally written to keep companies in check, not individual file-sharers.

In the face of the Chinese lax approach to copyright law though... it'd probably come down to how badly they wanted to sell phones outside China - neither Microsoft nor Hollywood has managed to make any appreciable dent in the internal copyright violations, I doubt a handful of FOSS advocates would succeed where they failed.

On the other hand, if the company simply doesn't realize that in this case they're actually ENCOURAGED to copy the software in exchange for access to the (probably minor) modifications they've made... well the potential positive feedback loop might tempt them into compliance anyway.

Re:Pretty much

[crutchy]

linux+china=good for linux+bad for microsoft & apple

Re: "or any later version"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'd be surprised how much of the Linux kernel does indeed include "or any later version."

Re:Only Aspergers nigger cunts use Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

13 year olds used to troll better back in my day

Curious ...

[Taco Cowboy]

I'm curious as to how many of you are using the XiaoMi phones

As far as I know the XiaoMi only sells their phones in PRC - and even inside PRC their phones are in short supply

Not saying that they shouldn't release their MIUI code .... but if one does not have XiaoMi phones, MIUI won't do any good at all

Re:Curious ...

[stiggle]

If you use a different phone with same/similar components, you can reuse the code to write the device drivers.
Thats part of the point of the GPL - you don't have to re-invent the same code over and over.

Does a license written in English...

[Anonymous Coward]

even have any legal force in China?

Bullshit summary

[truedfx]

From the summary:

Unless Xiaomi intends to develop a replacement for the Linux kernel, they need to make their modifications public.

From the article:

unless Xioami wants to develop a replacement for the Linux side of Android, they need to make their kernel modifications public.

The article is correct. Xioami only needs to make their kernel modifications public. The fact that there happens to be a GPL program in Android (the kernel) doesn't mean all of Android is tainted by it. Showing whatever else they've modified is nice, but not required.

RIAA/MPAA is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL is good?

If you've EVER downloaded a song or movie without paying the people who created the item you have ZERO voice in this matter. The only people who can defend the GPL are those who have not pirated music/video/software themselves.

In other words... Nobody.

Re:RIAA/MPAA is bad

[unkiereamus]

A foolish consistency is the hob-goblin of small minds.

Re:RIAA/MPAA is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Why taint the zen of python with this?

Re:Fundamental Misunderstanding of GPL

[Hal_Porter]

What about if I distribute the source code but tell them off the record that if they pass it on I will 'send the lads round to have a chat with them'.

Re:Fundamental Misunderstanding of GPL

[Alex Belits]

Then you can be both sued for breach of contract and charged with a felony.

Booby trap it!

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is a Cyanogenmod fork then just add some nasty code to Cyanogenmod that will make it blow up on MIUI devices. The chinese Copy & Paste Department will never figure it out.

Captcha: anarchy

Re: "or any later version"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'd be surprised how little that matters.

Re:Fundamental Misunderstanding of GPL

[Hal_Porter]

The lads are only coming round for a chat though, i.e. using their rights to free speech and free assembly. The lads are very protective on their human rights, and don't like them being curtailed.

MIUI is already open source on GitHub

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is bullshit. They have all their modifications accessible on their GitHub account: https://github.com/MiCode . This is way better than most Chinese companies using GPL.

Re:Fundamental Misunderstanding of GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP is actually correct for all of it, at least in the United States, where Contract Law is not trumped by GPL.

It is true that the user could redistribute the code without violating the GPL, but a user who VOLUNTARILY agrees to alienate their rights with an NDA would still be guilty of breach of contract if they did redistribute.

Your rights under GPL are not inalienable in the US. In the US you are perfectly free to alienate any/all of your rights, except those inalienable rights mentioned in the country's founding documents (life, liberty, property - in the 5th Amendment). Losing those rights requires due process - including life - which is why suicide is technically illegal in most jurisdictions in the US.

In any case, GPL does not convey any inalienable rights in the US, because it has no authority to do so. It also cannot trump Contract Law, nor forbid anyone requiring or voluntarily entering into an NDA.

I love all the armchair wannabe lawyers on Slashdot. They think the GPL is the supreme law of the land. Those who have actually gone to law school know better.

Re: "or any later version"

[Lunix Nutcase]

Then point out even a single source file that has that "or any later version" in it from the kernel. Also, the overarching COPYING file for the kernel does not have the phrase in it which would be invalid if any single source file did include it due to the "You may not impose any further
  209 restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein" clause.

Re:Fundamental Misunderstanding of GPL

[bws111]

That is complete nonsense. If you (not being the author) violate the GPL (by requiring an NDA for instance), then you have no authorization to distribute AT ALL. Copyright law makes that so, and law trumps contracts.

Of course, if you are the author of the code you can put whatever requirements you want on it, including an NDA. But then you aren't releasing it as GPL code, so there is no point in mentioning it here.

Your statement would imply that if Joe writes a song, and Bobby gives that song to Jane under some contract, Joe magically lost his rights. Complete nonsense.

only if they play nice

[Immerman]

Agreed. *IF* the Chinese companies respect the GPL. If they decide to take the codebase proprietary... well probably still good for Linux in that it has a larger deployed codebase to tempt developers and hardware support and undermines the Microsoft hegemony, but beyond that it would be just another proprietary *nix.

Re:only if they play nice

[crutchy]

well probably still good for Linux in that it has a larger deployed codebase to tempt developers and hardware support and undermines the Microsoft hegemony

that's what i reckon too

Re: "or any later version"

[Todd Knarr]

Individual bits may, but to make use of that you have to separate those bits out from the kernel and distribute them as independent parts. When combined with the kernel, you have to distribute on terms that fit all of the kernel. So if the kernel as a whole is "GPLv2 only" and one driver is "GPLv2 or any later version", you can distribute just the driver under GPLv3 but when you distribute the whole kernel you have to follow GPLv2 because if you used GPLv3 you'd be violating the license to the rest of the kernel (it only permits GPLv2).

GPL sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google made a HUGE mistake by not basing Android on a stack of 100% copyFREE software, like a BSD kernel; avoiding Linux, the GNU toolchain, and Java.

The unfreeness of copyLEFT software will continue to sabotage the growth of genuinely free software, and cause many headaches for a long time to come...

--libman

Re: "or any later version"

[apotheon]

Technically, I think it would make it a license violation to combine the "or any later version" files with the project as a whole, and not just make the project license invalid.

Heh..

[Anonymous Coward]

yet another sketchy controversy from the Mobile OS of Peace(TM).

I gave up on Android

[Anonymous Coward]

after 5 Android phones i finally gave up, sick of the flakiness of the system. I liked CyanogenMod's jellybean, but the radio kept dropping out,
MMS was broken and thats the closest i came to sticking with Android. Maybe i was unlucky, with flaky audio, random switch offs and random bugs
i'm done with Android for now !

'CruTcHy' (lol): Quit projecting

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing you "Run, Forrest - RUN!!!" here, from a simple question = priceless -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3263923&cid=42078237

* The simple fact of the matter here, is that you WISH you were me... lol!

APK

P.S.=> Keep running, "Forrest", lmao...

... apk

Re:'CruTcHy' (lol): Quit projecting

[crutchy]

hahahahaha....there we go :)

c'mon apk... give us something good... that little tid bit of lame bullshit just isnj't enough any more

Re:'CruTcHy' (lol): Quit projecting

[webmistressrachel]

Hooray!!! Dutifully summoned.

(Turns to APK)
Hello APK x

lol...

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!", lmao @ 'CruTcHy' (lol)

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing your "Run, Forrest - RUN!!!" puny 'evasive maneuver' vs. a SIMPLE QUESTION = priceless -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3263923&cid=42078237

* Ah, yes/Again: The simple fact of the matter here, is that you WISH you were me... lol!

APK

P.S.=> Keep running, "Forrest", lmao...

... apk

Hello Barbara, not Barbie (or tomhudson)

[Anonymous Coward]

Look everybody - it's webmistressrachel (alias tomhudson, alias Barbara, not Barbie, and other registered 'luser' accounts she uses). The self-proclaimed troll no less.

Re:Hello Barbara, not Barbie (or tomhudson)

[webmistressrachel]

Are you stupid?

92.41.251.219

Re:Hello Barbara, not Barbie (or tomhudson)

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone knows you've multiple registered username accounts here troll.

Re:Hello Barbara, not Barbie (or tomhudson)

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone can use tor to change their ip address. You think we're stupid? You're stupid.

webmistressrachel the troll "busted", lol!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Vintage quote" from "webmistressrachel" (& her use of TOR):

"Screw you, apk, and the horse you rode in on. If I ever see you post here again, I'll bomb you as AC from Tor, meaning I'll NEVER run out of posts because I can change endpoint..." - by webmistressrachel (903577) on Sunday July 03 2011, @02:03PM (#36647614) Journal

FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2292298&cid=36647614

* LMAO - see subject-line above, & that quote - says it ALL!

APK

P.S.=> Your problem's that You *think* others are stupid, and it's YOU that is the STUPID one, lol... Simply since your own words do you in, every single time!

... apk

"Its heading is now 111 Mark 14..."

[Anonymous Coward]

"The exact heading a Romulan vessel would take, Jim. Toward the Neutral Zone. And home." FROM -> Star Trek TOS year 1 episode 14 "Balance of Terror".

* I doubt you get the significance of that, but I know others here will... in regards to your 'cloaking devices' & your alleged 'IP Address' you just posted!

APK

P.S.=> Especially seeing as how you left so suddenly after I quoted you saying this (& how you really operate):

"Screw you, apk, and the horse you rode in on. If I ever see you post here again, I'll bomb you as AC from Tor, meaning I'll NEVER run out of posts because I can change endpoint..." - by webmistressrachel (903577) on Sunday July 03 2011, @02:03PM (#36647614)

FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2292298&cid=36647614

See subject-line, we KNOW how you "flip the script" on that so what's the point of you posting "your" ip address?

You know - the one you'll change again swiftly via the means you clearly expose you use, & perhaps even YOU, to yet another of your "registered 'luser'" accounts you keep here, also (besides webmistressrachel)...

... apk

Re:"Its heading is now 111 Mark 14..."

[crutchy]

found that bug in your Python function yet?

Re:"Its heading is now 111 Mark 14..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Dearest "penis-skull" (lmao): What about this http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3272015&cid=42086577 ? or are you just another delusional wannabe that remains unrecognized for doing nothing of significance in computing?? I suppose the real question to ask, is this - what have YOU ever done that did well in the eyes of others in publications or trade shows in computing??? Nothing, right???? Of course!

Re:"Its heading is now 111 Mark 14..."

[crutchy]

i'm smarter than you... that's all that matters... and i can find a bug that you are oblivious to hahahahahahah!!!!! (there's your proof)

Re:"Its heading is now 111 Mark 14..."

[Anonymous Coward]

How come his code ran perfectly then? You're not very smart.

Re:"Its heading is now 111 Mark 14..."

[Anonymous Coward]

crutchy if you're smarter than apk, why's he done better than you in computing?

Re:"Its heading is now 111 Mark 14..."

[crutchy]

he hasn't. he's an ameteur noob, and a stupid one at that. at least i get paid to develop software.

You picked a KNOWN troll to "help" you? LOL!

[Anonymous Coward]

What bug? It ran 5x, perfectly, and right in front of you too, no less:

---

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42014943

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42016015

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42014957

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42014957

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42015649

---

* Proof's right there... some "bug"!

APK

P.S.=> Man - I might as well FINALLY tell you since you can't figure out HOW I am putting out 100's of perfect outputs from that tiny Python script - The ONLY "bug" is how /. is formatting what I paste into the page, but the results are everything & perfect!

... apk

Re:Only Aspergers nigger cunts use Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

don't be too dismissive, that's an impressive and innovative use of *both* 'nigger' and 'cunt' in the same insult.

takes a fair bit of creativity to combine words like that....pretty bright for a 13yo.

alas, he loses points for missing the opportunity to combine it with fag or faggot. 'nigger cunt faggot' would have given him a top score instead of only an average one.

Getting paid for writing software since 1994

[Anonymous Coward]

What've you ever done that was noted in computer publications (books, magazines, or newspapers), technical trade shows like Microsoft Tech Ed, or commercially sold software by certified Microsoft partners crutchy?

* LMAO - Now, THIS?

This I have to see from this puny troll that can't even program in C for Pete's sake... lol!

APK

P.S.=>

"he hasn't. he's an ameteur noob, and a stupid one at that. at least i get paid to develop software." - by crutchy (1949900) on Tuesday November 27, @12:48AM (#42102645)

By the way? It's "amateur", you illiterate DOLT, lol...

Plus, lastly - YOU, getting paid in peanuts tossed to you while you sit in your display cage @ the zoo, isn't payment (lmao), 'CruTcHy'...

... apk

Re:Getting paid for writing software since 1994

[crutchy]

jealous much :)

'CruTcHy' (lol) - backup your b.s., won't you?

[Anonymous Coward]

'CruTcHy' couldn't prove his b.s. here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3272015&cid=42083563 + we know you can't since you were asked to and you had a shit fit over it, here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3272015&cid=42097505 So you can stop your lies crutch and quit trying to play "expert in computing" - You aren't & showed us that much in the 2nd link.

Noob you can't even program in C

[Anonymous Coward]

When asked to prove your professional status as an alleged programmer, this was the result:

"you're a moron for even assuming i need to justify myself... fuck knuckle if you don't like what i say, go back to fucking your sister" - by crutchy (1949900) on Monday November 26, @03:38PM (#42097505)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3272015&cid=42097505

Re:Noob you can't even program in C

[crutchy]

and why do i need to prove my professional status again? just because someone asked... pfft riiiiiight. i can indicate my professional status, and you can choose to believe it or not. i don't give a shit either way. i didn't post my professional status to prove anything, merely to make a statement that i don't play minecraft despite a previous post indicating its supposed popularity.... maybe if you actually read through the whole thread you might take it in its intended context... wait a minute this is APK we're talking about, who doesn't even understand the difference between "don't" and "can't"... expecting him to understand anything is a lost cause.

Re:Noob you can't even program in C

[Anonymous Coward]

You prove you don't have status and certainly not professional status.

Re:Noob you can't even program in C

[crutchy]

you prove you're a noob... over and over again

Noob, prove you're what you said you are

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a noob with nothing of any worth to show for yourself in coding. Period.

Prove otherwise.

Oh, wait: You can't. We know that already from your "raging rant" regarding that, here:

"A 'VINTAGE' PERTINENT 'CruTcHy' (lol) QUOTE"

---

"you're a moron for even assuming i need to justify myself... fuck knuckle if you don't like what i say, go back to fucking your sister" - by crutchy (1949900) on Monday November 26, @03:38PM (#42097505)

FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3272015&cid=42097505

---

* Lastly - QUIT "PROJECTING" THERE, 'CruTcHy' (lmao)...

APK

P.S.=> Yes, we hit a "sore spot" there. 'CruTcHy' is STILL in "noob-state", never having done anything professionally in programming apparently, based on that "FoaMiNg-@-the-Mouth" reply of his above, lmao...

... apk