I have to point out there is no difference between a public and private key in PKI encryption. With CSS the problem was they gave the decryption key out. This is often done in the real world, but it's called 'authentication', not 'encryption'. DVDs provably come from the CSS Consortium, but that seems somewhat silly to prove.
The point of weakness isn't going to be at the software level, like CSS was broken, it's going to be a brute-force attack. Though in reality I suspect a leak will get there first.
Kevin was in prison when all this was happening, or out on parole without a computer, thus he would have found it rather hard to dial up said modems and hack Sprint.
You changed it to something 'more secure' and didn't give it to them? I hope they can still change it, because, if not, you're going to get sued when some cracker finds out what it is and suddenly has twenty thousand open routers.
Testifying in court can never break someone's parole. God, that would be a horrible civil rights violation just waiting to happen, saying someone isn't legally allowed to testify in court. The judge would be disbarred before the trial was over. People always always always have the right to be in court.
As an aside, testifying in court is one of the few things you can always do from prison, and you will automatically be given travel permission if your parole includes location limitations and you need to appear in court outside that area.
An important phrase is 'a single act'. McVeigh commited a single act, and, with that, commited 167 murders.
If a mother shoots all five kids in a row, bang bang bang bang bang, as an example, (Gah, what an example.), that can either be five seperate trials or one, as there were five seperate acts that happened all together, but were nevertheless seperate.
Same thing applies with murder/robbery. The murder happens during the robbery, so they can, I believe, be charged seperately. The robbery and the murder were not the same act. (This get iffy with the felony murder rule. The act, 'killing someone during a felony', automatically happens because you commited a felony. But they can only charge you in addition to commiting a felony. I don't really know how it works.)
Basically, there is no restriction on lumping acts together. It's possible to try someone for two crimes that happened weeks apart in the same trial. But, remember, the courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he commited all crimes, so if they prove he committed one but fail to prove the other, the criminal is off the hook for all of them and cannot be tried again. But when they are two crimes from the same act, it has to be the same trial, barring crimes in different juristidictions.
The reason is that courts don't prove crimes, they prove acts, and thus they have to include all the crimes you committed with that act. They can't keep claiming you commited the same act, just different crimes. If the court says that you didn't commit the act, you didn't commit the act, period, and thus you didn't commit any crimes with said act.
Note while you cannot be charged with crimes for said acts, the court does not always assume you didn't commit the act. If you're charged for another crime from another act, and your first act, the one you were aquitted for but they can prove now, shows motive or something, they are allowed to prove you commited the first act. (But you still can't be charged with any crime from that act.)
Yeah, that was just silly. It wouldn't be double jeopardy, she was convicted of a non-existence murder, it's not legal to kill him 'again'. She can't be convicted of killing him the first time again, but, obviously, the justice system doesn't go around arresting people for something they just finished their sentence for. (A much better solution would be to go to the police with her information and have the guy locked up. Start with 'kidnapping' (Why, I don't believe people who are legally dead can, in fact, be the guardian of their children.) and work from there. And sue him while you're at it.)
However, I always thought it was possible the jury would simply fail to convict her. If I were on the jury, and she showed up, I'd figure, hey, she already paid for the crime, and I'd let her off.
Of course, once you get the media on your side, who knows what would happen. While it might not be legal, I'll argue that it should be legal to do to a person what they framed you for doing and sent you to prison for, and a lot of people would agree with me.
I could have sworn ssh let you do non-encryted connections, that I had in fact done a non-encrypted coinnection with it, but now I can't see it anywhere in the man pages.
Just ignore me, I apparently don't know what I'm talking about.
The first solution would have made sense, except for the fact group ids are not that changable on production systems. There probably already is a group number 80. But it's a nice start, someday you'll invent ACLs. However your second suggestion is the silliest thing I've ever heard.
The problem is that ssh can change to any user it wants. That's the PROBLEM, that's the reason that bit was seperated out and away from the network traffic bit. It's not a solution.
Making it where the process id X (Where X is supposed to be sshd), can change to anyone else, is pretty much a negative solution to the problem, because now people can get root even after it's dropped privs. Not to mention now you cannot restart sshd if you need to, because it has to be pid X. And god help you when the kernel people come up with yet another 'fake' process that runs when the kernel starts, using no memory but taking up a pid.
And there is functionally no difference between being able to change to any user except root and being able to change to root. If you can change to the sysadmin's non-root account you can get root trivially by trojaning 'su', or, if he's very paranoid, by trojaning his shell.
Good god. Are people still this misinformed yet managing to not get hit by traffic?
Here's a quote from Vincent Cerf (Yeah, that Vincent Cerf, the one that 'surfing' the internet comes from.) and Robert Kahn (You know, the guy who invented TCP/IP.)
'The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship.'
Yes, those are the fucking fathers of the internet collaberating Gore's 'lie'. If Vicent Cerf and Robert Kahn say someone helped create the internet, I'll believe it.
As for the union song, people laughed. It was a joke, period. People don't remember songs sung to them in the craddle, it was a throwaway line. Gore grew up in a very pro-union house, and was making a joke about.
But the real kicker is why the fuck would he 'lie' about that? Let's guess which is more plausible: He was making a joke about the pro-union feeling in his house, or he decided to make a completely unbelivable lie, because people can't even remember things in the cradle, and everyone knows that, for no appearent benefit?
Geez, if he walks in with a line 'I just flew here from Washington, and boy are my arms tired!', will people start nitpicking that he just had a nap on the plane and thus his arms can't be tired?
Even more to the point, it is legal to make any copy if needed to *use* the program. So just take your CD-ROM out of the windows box, and, tada, you have to copy it to the Linux machine to use it.
For a better analogy, one that doesn't involve any murder, it's a boycott of any company that advertises during a certain show. Yes, it's 'excessive', but it's certainly acceptable and makes sense.
Of course, a boycott isn't a very good analogy, either. Those providers have proven untrustworthy. They host spammers, they don't get rid of them, and they move them around to keep them out of blocklists. People using an untrustworthy provider are themselves untrustworthy.
The perfect analogy, one that's brought up all the time, is the 'bad neighborhood' analogy. If you live in a bad neighborhood, you can't get pizza delievered. It's not a moral judgement of you, it's just dangerous. Likewise, it is dangerous to give these providers access to our computers. If you want to get pizza from my company, you can move, and moving on the net is much easier than in real life.
And if people are using a blocklist without knowing what it blocks, that's their own damned fault.
Finally, you got it. You cannot contact SPEWS. If your provider's SPEWS listing is wrong, post it in NANAE and people will discuss it. If it's clearly wrong, and remains wrong, people will stop using SPEWS. That's the way it works. As people are still using SPEWS, and you didn't get out of the list, I'll have to assume that your provider's listing was, in fact, accurate.
You hire a thief as a provider, expect some people not to do business with you. That's just the way it is. And you refuse to even COMPLAIN to your provider that your money is going towards helping spam.
If you're on this network and lack any sort of ethcial sense, don't expect people to want mail from you.
So, in other words, you just emailed a random guy instead of following the instructions on how to get out of SPEWS.
The guy running the servers is not the guy running SPEWS, and he's probably sick and tired of people whining to him.
The anonimity thing is because the last people to do this got harrassed by lawsuits and had to shutdown. (None of the lawsuits succeeded, but lawyers cost money.) Half the immediate responses to finding yourself on these lists is to scream bloody murder and threaten lawsuits. SPEWS has evidence your ISP spams, they link to it from their page, so it can't be libel, but you'd be amazed at how many people leap on the newsgroup and threaten legal action.
If someone really wants to find SPEWS, they can, but it's going to cost them a lot of money and they're probably going to have to go though the courts of at least three countries. Presto, no more SLAPPs.
It's not because they have somethig to 'hide', it's because all the other lists have gotten harrassed with lawsuits, none of which eventually had any merit. If someone really wants to sue them, nothing's stopping them, it's just a barrior to stop someone from walking into a lawyer's office and saying 'I want to sue these people'.
The GPL doesn't even deal with that. It doesn't say "the entire program is derivitive even if you only used GPL code in one small & easily noticiable section." If it did, the GPL would be dealing with this issue, which it doesn't even bother to touch.
The GPL doesn't need to deal with it, it's basic copyright law. I can't copy a poem from someone else and stick it in a book to sell, and I can't copy a subroutine and stick it in a non-GPL program.
Now, there are fair use rights, but there aren't really any of those that apply to incorperating the source code of a program into another program, which you then sell. Fair use with software is basically making complete copies of it as backups, modifying it so your compuer can run it, or copying it for the same reason. Once you start selling things, almost all Fair Use stops there.
It's against the wishes of the FSF, and Stallman, but not necessarilly against the wishes of the upstream programmers.
If it wasn't against their wishes, they should obviously be using another license. Nothing stops them from dual licensing any code whatsoever, including code that's buried deep in programs they didn't write. (Of course, they need to have a way to clearly mark their code, vs. everyone else's pure GPL code.)
The whole 'the author's usually don't mind' argument is bogus on the face of it. There are plenty of things licensed under the GPL and artisitic license, or programs that are 'GPL', but in reality 95% of the program is dual GPL/BSD, and you can simply strip out the GPL code if you want a BSD program.
And there are plenty of things that are not. The option is there, and plenty of programs have taken it. The GPL doesn't 'infect' the other code in the program, it's still available under the other license also. It's just the GPL part that you cannot use without making your program GPL.
And please note that in the scienrio [sp] I outlined, the GPL'd code and the obviously-derivitive-of-GPL'd-code code are both still GPL. But the rest of the program, which has abosolutely nothing to do with the GPL'd code aside from loading at the same time, isn't.)
'Has absolutely nothing to do with it'? It depend on it to work, doesn't it?
A 'derivative' work isn't, like I said before, a work that has been 'modfied' into another work. That's what you'd think it was, from the name, but a derivative work is one that uses the other work. A TV series based in the Star Trek universe is a derivative work, you don't actually have to edit footage of TNG for it to be so. If it relies on the Star Trek universe, it's derivative, even with entirely new characters and ships.
Likewise, a program that relies on the readline library to work is derivative of said library. This isn't the GPL claiming this, this is copyright law.
But like I said, the GPL is entirely toothless here, because you don't have to accept it to use the software. You can give your commerical program that's linked to a GPL library to anyone you want. This violates the terms of the GPL, but that simply means you can't distribute the library anymore. And neither can anyone who uses your program.
The only thing it really stops from doing is hacking GPL code that isn't in a library into a 'library' that only your program uses, and giving that out with the program. You could do some silly manuveuring to get around this, but it makes it very inconvenent for the end users, because you can't distribute your 'library', and no one else really wants to.
The problem here is: How do you know what B did? If you know, if someone saw him, of course he poisoned the water, and is guilty of attempted murder.
If you didn't see him, if no one saw him and he didn't confess, then how the heck do you know he did it? Maybe he didn't poison the water.
You're cheating by telling us what he did that no one saw. In QM, what someone did that no one saw doesn't exist. You can't set up an omnipotent narrator viewpoint to create situations in QM, the actof observation changes the scenerio.
He poisoned the water, he drank half of it, he peed in it, he turned it into Sprite, it's all true until someone checks it. If other events render this impossible, it's incorrect to talk about what he 'did' do, that is completely meaningless.
If I steal the jewels from your house which, before you notice anything amiss, burns down through actions totally unrelated to my own, did I really steal them?
For you, you stole the jewels. For the homeowner, the jewels were both stolen and not stolen, it is impossible to know. Also, the paintings on the wall were both stolen and not stolen.
Now, if it ever gets back to them, you will have always stolen the jewels from them.
If I take your GPL'd dice roller and modify it, I've created a derivitive work. But if I take your die roller and add it to my "gaming suite" program, is the entire program derivitive?
Yes, it is. People seem to have problems grasping this, but if you copy something directly from one program to another, you have to respect the license. There's not an exception because your program does a lot of other stuff too.
Now, below a certain point, about a dozen lines of code, it doesn't really matter. Software could just randomly look the same at that point. But, of course, at that point you're at the law of dimishing returns, it's easier to just rewrite the whole thing anyway.
And I know you're going to whine, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who's trying to copy GPL code into some other program. Even if you find some legal grounds for that, it's obviously against the wishes of the programmer.
People calling the GPL a 'license' so it's as bad as other license are just insane, and it's really pointless to reason with them. Most of them are under the mistaken impression that software is supposed to be licenced, and licences are what keep you from copying it.
For all those people out there in the real world, here's the analogy, from one universe over:
Music publishers, for the last ten years, have CDs that you are only allowed to listen to in your car, and different CDs that you can only listen to in your house. This is the normal, most people buy two copies of everything, and almost all CDs have a 'license agreement' plastic wrap that says this. These CDs are normal software with EULAs, they have licenses that restrict your rights, you agree to them by opening the shinkwrap it's printed on. All of these prohibit making backups of the music, some of them prohibit making any clips of it, some of them restrict you to just one car, they have all sorts of rules. Sometimes you'll find a CD without any rules, but it's rare.
Then the new music publishers 'FSF' have come out with GPL CDs. These CD don't have shinkwrap around them. They're just like normal CDs you buy in the store in this universe, you're limited by copyright law. And, in addition, they have an insert granting you the right to copy tracks 1, 4, and 5 and give them to other people, and to play the song on track 9 live for free in public, rights you do not normally have under copyright law.
These two things are fundementally difference. They are both, technically, 'licenses'. One restricts you, the other gives you extra things
Well, can't argue with that:) But it's even better for the community if he didn't pirate that copy of AutoCAD to begin with. While it's great that he's an entrepreneur, that doesn't justify his use of "pirated" software to further his cause. Just as he would be quite unhappy if someone made a copy of his design and started selling "his" shirts.
You assert that it's not better for the community, but don't give any reasons for this. Then you start talking about how something is 'unjustified', which usually just means 'I don't think he should do that.' unless you're actually talking about something that's related to 'justice'.
To finish off the paragraph, you tried to turn the tables on him, which rather obviously has no bearing on society as a whole. (The government takes money from me. The government would not like me taking money from them. Ergo, taking money from me is bad for society. That doesn't make any sense at all.)
What you're saying doesn't make any sense. I've seen other people claiming the GPL is a 'usage' license based that clause, but that's rather silly. If you don't agree with the GPL, all you have to do is not agree to the GPL. the only time you need to agree to the GPL is if you're distributing GPL code, and, if you're doing that, of course it's a derivitive work.
The problem seems to be people who don't grasp what a 'derivitive work' is. If you use GPL code, it's a deriviate work. If you just link to GPL code, yes, that's a 'violation' of the GPL, but you don't have to agree to the GPL to use the library, and so your software doesn't have to be under the GPL,so you can distribute it.
I'm frankly rather baffled as to why that clause is the GPL anyway. It doesn't seem to have any legal force, all it really does it keep people from distributing GPL'd libraries with their application. (Because they're breaking the GPL on the libraries, they can't redistribute it.) But other people can, or they can write an installed that downloads or, many different things.
Slashdot Mirror
The point of weakness isn't going to be at the software level, like CSS was broken, it's going to be a brute-force attack. Though in reality I suspect a leak will get there first.
Kevin was in prison when all this was happening, or out on parole without a computer, thus he would have found it rather hard to dial up said modems and hack Sprint.
You changed it to something 'more secure' and didn't give it to them? I hope they can still change it, because, if not, you're going to get sued when some cracker finds out what it is and suddenly has twenty thousand open routers.
As an aside, testifying in court is one of the few things you can always do from prison, and you will automatically be given travel permission if your parole includes location limitations and you need to appear in court outside that area.
If a mother shoots all five kids in a row, bang bang bang bang bang, as an example, (Gah, what an example.), that can either be five seperate trials or one, as there were five seperate acts that happened all together, but were nevertheless seperate.
Same thing applies with murder/robbery. The murder happens during the robbery, so they can, I believe, be charged seperately. The robbery and the murder were not the same act. (This get iffy with the felony murder rule. The act, 'killing someone during a felony', automatically happens because you commited a felony. But they can only charge you in addition to commiting a felony. I don't really know how it works.)
Basically, there is no restriction on lumping acts together. It's possible to try someone for two crimes that happened weeks apart in the same trial. But, remember, the courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he commited all crimes, so if they prove he committed one but fail to prove the other, the criminal is off the hook for all of them and cannot be tried again. But when they are two crimes from the same act, it has to be the same trial, barring crimes in different juristidictions.
The reason is that courts don't prove crimes, they prove acts, and thus they have to include all the crimes you committed with that act. They can't keep claiming you commited the same act, just different crimes. If the court says that you didn't commit the act, you didn't commit the act, period, and thus you didn't commit any crimes with said act.
Note while you cannot be charged with crimes for said acts, the court does not always assume you didn't commit the act. If you're charged for another crime from another act, and your first act, the one you were aquitted for but they can prove now, shows motive or something, they are allowed to prove you commited the first act. (But you still can't be charged with any crime from that act.)
However, I always thought it was possible the jury would simply fail to convict her. If I were on the jury, and she showed up, I'd figure, hey, she already paid for the crime, and I'd let her off.
Of course, once you get the media on your side, who knows what would happen. While it might not be legal, I'll argue that it should be legal to do to a person what they framed you for doing and sent you to prison for, and a lot of people would agree with me.
I could have sworn ssh let you do non-encryted connections, that I had in fact done a non-encrypted coinnection with it, but now I can't see it anywhere in the man pages.
Just ignore me, I apparently don't know what I'm talking about.
The problem is that ssh can change to any user it wants. That's the PROBLEM, that's the reason that bit was seperated out and away from the network traffic bit. It's not a solution.
Making it where the process id X (Where X is supposed to be sshd), can change to anyone else, is pretty much a negative solution to the problem, because now people can get root even after it's dropped privs. Not to mention now you cannot restart sshd if you need to, because it has to be pid X. And god help you when the kernel people come up with yet another 'fake' process that runs when the kernel starts, using no memory but taking up a pid.
And there is functionally no difference between being able to change to any user except root and being able to change to root. If you can change to the sysadmin's non-root account you can get root trivially by trojaning 'su', or, if he's very paranoid, by trojaning his shell.
Just set your encryption algorythm to none. Tada.
Um, like K-Meleon, Galeon, and Q.BATi?
I mean, the guy liked pigeons.
Here's a quote from Vincent Cerf (Yeah, that Vincent Cerf, the one that 'surfing' the internet comes from.) and Robert Kahn (You know, the guy who invented TCP/IP.)
'The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship.'
Yes, those are the fucking fathers of the internet collaberating Gore's 'lie'. If Vicent Cerf and Robert Kahn say someone helped create the internet, I'll believe it.
As for the union song, people laughed. It was a joke, period. People don't remember songs sung to them in the craddle, it was a throwaway line. Gore grew up in a very pro-union house, and was making a joke about.
But the real kicker is why the fuck would he 'lie' about that? Let's guess which is more plausible: He was making a joke about the pro-union feeling in his house, or he decided to make a completely unbelivable lie, because people can't even remember things in the cradle, and everyone knows that, for no appearent benefit?
Geez, if he walks in with a line 'I just flew here from Washington, and boy are my arms tired!', will people start nitpicking that he just had a nap on the plane and thus his arms can't be tired?
Holy crap! Not only is that displaying right, but I can cut and paste it!
Even more to the point, it is legal to make any copy if needed to *use* the program. So just take your CD-ROM out of the windows box, and, tada, you have to copy it to the Linux machine to use it.
Of course, a boycott isn't a very good analogy, either. Those providers have proven untrustworthy. They host spammers, they don't get rid of them, and they move them around to keep them out of blocklists. People using an untrustworthy provider are themselves untrustworthy.
The perfect analogy, one that's brought up all the time, is the 'bad neighborhood' analogy. If you live in a bad neighborhood, you can't get pizza delievered. It's not a moral judgement of you, it's just dangerous. Likewise, it is dangerous to give these providers access to our computers. If you want to get pizza from my company, you can move, and moving on the net is much easier than in real life.
And if people are using a blocklist without knowing what it blocks, that's their own damned fault.
You hire a thief as a provider, expect some people not to do business with you. That's just the way it is. And you refuse to even COMPLAIN to your provider that your money is going towards helping spam.
If you're on this network and lack any sort of ethcial sense, don't expect people to want mail from you.
If you explained it to a guy in Russia, you did not follow the procedure, full stop, no exceptions.
The guy running the servers is not the guy running SPEWS, and he's probably sick and tired of people whining to him.
The anonimity thing is because the last people to do this got harrassed by lawsuits and had to shutdown. (None of the lawsuits succeeded, but lawyers cost money.) Half the immediate responses to finding yourself on these lists is to scream bloody murder and threaten lawsuits. SPEWS has evidence your ISP spams, they link to it from their page, so it can't be libel, but you'd be amazed at how many people leap on the newsgroup and threaten legal action.
If someone really wants to find SPEWS, they can, but it's going to cost them a lot of money and they're probably going to have to go though the courts of at least three countries. Presto, no more SLAPPs.
It's not because they have somethig to 'hide', it's because all the other lists have gotten harrassed with lawsuits, none of which eventually had any merit. If someone really wants to sue them, nothing's stopping them, it's just a barrior to stop someone from walking into a lawyer's office and saying 'I want to sue these people'.
The GPL doesn't need to deal with it, it's basic copyright law. I can't copy a poem from someone else and stick it in a book to sell, and I can't copy a subroutine and stick it in a non-GPL program.
Now, there are fair use rights, but there aren't really any of those that apply to incorperating the source code of a program into another program, which you then sell. Fair use with software is basically making complete copies of it as backups, modifying it so your compuer can run it, or copying it for the same reason. Once you start selling things, almost all Fair Use stops there.
It's against the wishes of the FSF, and Stallman, but not necessarilly against the wishes of the upstream programmers.
If it wasn't against their wishes, they should obviously be using another license. Nothing stops them from dual licensing any code whatsoever, including code that's buried deep in programs they didn't write. (Of course, they need to have a way to clearly mark their code, vs. everyone else's pure GPL code.)
The whole 'the author's usually don't mind' argument is bogus on the face of it. There are plenty of things licensed under the GPL and artisitic license, or programs that are 'GPL', but in reality 95% of the program is dual GPL/BSD, and you can simply strip out the GPL code if you want a BSD program.
And there are plenty of things that are not. The option is there, and plenty of programs have taken it. The GPL doesn't 'infect' the other code in the program, it's still available under the other license also. It's just the GPL part that you cannot use without making your program GPL.
And please note that in the scienrio [sp] I outlined, the GPL'd code and the obviously-derivitive-of-GPL'd-code code are both still GPL. But the rest of the program, which has abosolutely nothing to do with the GPL'd code aside from loading at the same time, isn't.)
'Has absolutely nothing to do with it'? It depend on it to work, doesn't it?
A 'derivative' work isn't, like I said before, a work that has been 'modfied' into another work. That's what you'd think it was, from the name, but a derivative work is one that uses the other work. A TV series based in the Star Trek universe is a derivative work, you don't actually have to edit footage of TNG for it to be so. If it relies on the Star Trek universe, it's derivative, even with entirely new characters and ships.
Likewise, a program that relies on the readline library to work is derivative of said library. This isn't the GPL claiming this, this is copyright law.
But like I said, the GPL is entirely toothless here, because you don't have to accept it to use the software. You can give your commerical program that's linked to a GPL library to anyone you want. This violates the terms of the GPL, but that simply means you can't distribute the library anymore. And neither can anyone who uses your program.
The only thing it really stops from doing is hacking GPL code that isn't in a library into a 'library' that only your program uses, and giving that out with the program. You could do some silly manuveuring to get around this, but it makes it very inconvenent for the end users, because you can't distribute your 'library', and no one else really wants to.
If you didn't see him, if no one saw him and he didn't confess, then how the heck do you know he did it? Maybe he didn't poison the water.
You're cheating by telling us what he did that no one saw. In QM, what someone did that no one saw doesn't exist. You can't set up an omnipotent narrator viewpoint to create situations in QM, the actof observation changes the scenerio.
He poisoned the water, he drank half of it, he peed in it, he turned it into Sprite, it's all true until someone checks it. If other events render this impossible, it's incorrect to talk about what he 'did' do, that is completely meaningless.
For you, you stole the jewels. For the homeowner, the jewels were both stolen and not stolen, it is impossible to know. Also, the paintings on the wall were both stolen and not stolen.
Now, if it ever gets back to them, you will have always stolen the jewels from them.
Yes, it is. People seem to have problems grasping this, but if you copy something directly from one program to another, you have to respect the license. There's not an exception because your program does a lot of other stuff too.
Now, below a certain point, about a dozen lines of code, it doesn't really matter. Software could just randomly look the same at that point. But, of course, at that point you're at the law of dimishing returns, it's easier to just rewrite the whole thing anyway.
And I know you're going to whine, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who's trying to copy GPL code into some other program. Even if you find some legal grounds for that, it's obviously against the wishes of the programmer.
For all those people out there in the real world, here's the analogy, from one universe over:
Music publishers, for the last ten years, have CDs that you are only allowed to listen to in your car, and different CDs that you can only listen to in your house. This is the normal, most people buy two copies of everything, and almost all CDs have a 'license agreement' plastic wrap that says this. These CDs are normal software with EULAs, they have licenses that restrict your rights, you agree to them by opening the shinkwrap it's printed on. All of these prohibit making backups of the music, some of them prohibit making any clips of it, some of them restrict you to just one car, they have all sorts of rules. Sometimes you'll find a CD without any rules, but it's rare.
Then the new music publishers 'FSF' have come out with GPL CDs. These CD don't have shinkwrap around them. They're just like normal CDs you buy in the store in this universe, you're limited by copyright law. And, in addition, they have an insert granting you the right to copy tracks 1, 4, and 5 and give them to other people, and to play the song on track 9 live for free in public, rights you do not normally have under copyright law.
These two things are fundementally difference. They are both, technically, 'licenses'. One restricts you, the other gives you extra things
You assert that it's not better for the community, but don't give any reasons for this. Then you start talking about how something is 'unjustified', which usually just means 'I don't think he should do that.' unless you're actually talking about something that's related to 'justice'.
To finish off the paragraph, you tried to turn the tables on him, which rather obviously has no bearing on society as a whole. (The government takes money from me. The government would not like me taking money from them. Ergo, taking money from me is bad for society. That doesn't make any sense at all.)
The problem seems to be people who don't grasp what a 'derivitive work' is. If you use GPL code, it's a deriviate work. If you just link to GPL code, yes, that's a 'violation' of the GPL, but you don't have to agree to the GPL to use the library, and so your software doesn't have to be under the GPL,so you can distribute it.
I'm frankly rather baffled as to why that clause is the GPL anyway. It doesn't seem to have any legal force, all it really does it keep people from distributing GPL'd libraries with their application. (Because they're breaking the GPL on the libraries, they can't redistribute it.) But other people can, or they can write an installed that downloads or, many different things.