Re:Copyright holder question
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
fuck that, you just close it and if anyone complains you buy them off, and if they refuse to be bought off you reverse their bug fix, wait for someone to complain about the bug and fix it yourself. Bug fixes, pfft. Now if someone has done significant functionality then you're fucked.
Re:Why isn't the GPL more specific?
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
I think all the concessions should be removed and simple replaced with the statements:
You must distribute source code with binaries to this program.
All software distributed with this program must be licensed under this license.
You may not restrict the distribution of this software in any other way.
Hmm. I just had a brainstorm. You know shareware, or should I say nagware. You get a program, it constantly bugs you to register (ie, pay money). It bugs you day and night but you just ignore it. A few people actually get sick of this and pay the money to make it go away. I hear some people even feel guilty about this little box popping up and pay to make it go away. So if that is a valid business model (and I'm not saying it is) then what's wrong with doing the same thing with Free Software. You cant say "you have used this product for 30 days, you must now pay me" but you can say "you are getting a lot of use out of this product, please fork me cash".. you are not demanding money, you're just requesting it. Sure, people are gunna get pissed off and go and grab the source code and take out the annoying nag box, but so what? Isn't it developers that we specifically want to grab the source? If you can fix the source so the nag box doesn't come up then surely you can fix a few bugs, implement some new features, whatever, and contribute that back to the project. Developers have paid for the software with their contribution of code, and end users (well, at least some of them) have contributed with cash. Isn't that the best of both worlds?
sigh. I can understand your frustration, but unfortunately in this case litigation is exactly what Avery is intending (this is from personal email with him that I will not quote for privacy reasons).
Warezing and selling someone else's stuff are two different things. If you download warez and sell them to people I'd put you in the same boat as SloMedia but at least most people would have the intelligence to not try to do it above board.
Yes, where you can have editorial comments which say "hmm, I really think you should rewrite this submission with a bigger summary, because I'm too fucking lazy to click on the link and read the article myself" when all you're trying to do is propogate some links (and yes, it *was* posted under MLP).
Seriously, this is true. I submitted it to Slashdot, it was rejected. I posted a comment to the AOL crap yesterday, it got modded up to +5, so I resubmitted it, rejected. I posted the story to newsforge and submitted "Newsforge reports VirtualDub GPL violation", rejected. I posted it to LinuxToday, got bored, went to kuro5hin, posted it there. Someone saw my bitch about Slashdot submission process in an editorial comment, submitted it to Slashdot, accepted. It's all about spin. Slashdot editors need to see that headline to trigger their puny little brains into thinking there might be something tabloid here.
I can do it, I can do it. I can offer facts without opinion. I'm sure I can do it. yes, they release the source to their modified DLL's. Ahhh.. that wasn't so hard.
Avery doesn't want to relicense his code because Vidomi is a dodgy program for ripping DVDs and encoding them with the illegal divx codec stolen from Microsoft. Avery has gone to a lot of trouble to disassociate VirtualDub with "movie pirates" and now Vidomi threatens to bring public perception back to that yet again.
Re:Maybe we need a standard GPL-violation Form Let
on
AOL And The GPL
·
· Score: 1
To go out on a limb here, Vidomi doesn't have any lawyers. They have no interest conforming to the GPL at all, except where they can get around it, and as such they're more than happy to misinterpret the GPL until they end up in court (which they obviously believe will never happen).
Re:Maybe we need a standard GPL-violation Form Let
on
AOL And The GPL
·
· Score: 1
Credit is not the issue. The issue is their product is closed source and Avery does not want to relicense his code to them because they are distributing the illegal divx codec with their product and Avery has worked very hard to disassociate VirtualDub with the divx codec and video piracy in general.
Re:Maybe we need a standard GPL-violation Form Let
on
AOL And The GPL
·
· Score: 1
grr.. and I just got modded down as troll. Slashdot is so fuckin' owned.
Slashdot Mirror
fuck that, you just close it and if anyone complains you buy them off, and if they refuse to be bought off you reverse their bug fix, wait for someone to complain about the bug and fix it yourself. Bug fixes, pfft. Now if someone has done significant functionality then you're fucked.
EOF.
Are COM objects "seperate programs?" I'd say they are not programs at all.
Hmm. I just had a brainstorm. You know shareware, or should I say nagware. You get a program, it constantly bugs you to register (ie, pay money). It bugs you day and night but you just ignore it. A few people actually get sick of this and pay the money to make it go away. I hear some people even feel guilty about this little box popping up and pay to make it go away. So if that is a valid business model (and I'm not saying it is) then what's wrong with doing the same thing with Free Software. You cant say "you have used this product for 30 days, you must now pay me" but you can say "you are getting a lot of use out of this product, please fork me cash" .. you are not demanding money, you're just requesting it. Sure, people are gunna get pissed off and go and grab the source code and take out the annoying nag box, but so what? Isn't it developers that we specifically want to grab the source? If you can fix the source so the nag box doesn't come up then surely you can fix a few bugs, implement some new features, whatever, and contribute that back to the project. Developers have paid for the software with their contribution of code, and end users (well, at least some of them) have contributed with cash. Isn't that the best of both worlds?
My skills are madder than yours Demian Phillips.
sigh. I can understand your frustration, but unfortunately in this case litigation is exactly what Avery is intending (this is from personal email with him that I will not quote for privacy reasons).
yer, they FSF is only got a few dozen lawyers who donate their time to it. 99% of costs of a court case is in the lawyers.
stupid stupid stupid. His little script _would_ have to be GPL if he distributed it with the GPL tools.
WTF are you on about? Microsoft's licenses have been debated in court, are you saying that Microsoft's licenses are weak?
you look on,
waiting for the head to roll out,
even though you know it will make you sick,
you can't tear your eyes away.
Warezing and selling someone else's stuff are two different things. If you download warez and sell them to people I'd put you in the same boat as SloMedia but at least most people would have the intelligence to not try to do it above board.
Yes, where you can have editorial comments which say "hmm, I really think you should rewrite this submission with a bigger summary, because I'm too fucking lazy to click on the link and read the article myself" when all you're trying to do is propogate some links (and yes, it *was* posted under MLP).
Seriously, this is true. I submitted it to Slashdot, it was rejected. I posted a comment to the AOL crap yesterday, it got modded up to +5, so I resubmitted it, rejected. I posted the story to newsforge and submitted "Newsforge reports VirtualDub GPL violation", rejected. I posted it to LinuxToday, got bored, went to kuro5hin, posted it there. Someone saw my bitch about Slashdot submission process in an editorial comment, submitted it to Slashdot, accepted. It's all about spin. Slashdot editors need to see that headline to trigger their puny little brains into thinking there might be something tabloid here.
I can do it, I can do it. I can offer facts without opinion. I'm sure I can do it. yes, they release the source to their modified DLL's. Ahhh.. that wasn't so hard.
I see you're not responding to flames, so I will try to keep it civil. Do you intend to go to court over this matter? If Avery decides to sue that is?
Avery doesn't want to relicense his code because Vidomi is a dodgy program for ripping DVDs and encoding them with the illegal divx codec stolen from Microsoft. Avery has gone to a lot of trouble to disassociate VirtualDub with "movie pirates" and now Vidomi threatens to bring public perception back to that yet again.
you seem to get the fact that Avery Lee didn't want his code used in a dodgy DVD ripping program, it's a shame SloMedia doesn't get it.
Vidomi is anything but a 50/50 mix, but I agree with your comment.
My discussions with Avery Lee and RMS would indicate otherwise, but I hear ya.
what? you think RMS is gunna go around and sing to them? Enforce == sue, what else is there?
woo hoo! Sing it brother!
* 2001-05-22 22:04:28 Vidomi GPL violation of VirtualDub situation update (articles,news) (rejected)
To go out on a limb here, Vidomi doesn't have any lawyers. They have no interest conforming to the GPL at all, except where they can get around it, and as such they're more than happy to misinterpret the GPL until they end up in court (which they obviously believe will never happen).
Credit is not the issue. The issue is their product is closed source and Avery does not want to relicense his code to them because they are distributing the illegal divx codec with their product and Avery has worked very hard to disassociate VirtualDub with the divx codec and video piracy in general.
grr.. and I just got modded down as troll. Slashdot is so fuckin' owned.