VX30 Ad-Stats Code Online

tmk writes "Drunkenblog has done it again. After deconstructing Maui X-Stream has GPL Violations with reproducable proof, he put a copy of the VX30 Ad-Stats source online. There is also a copy of the phpAdsNew source to compare. Drunkenbatman says 'This is a community problem, and it's pretty much up to you.'"

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[perimorph]

The GNU GPL (General Public License) states that you have to distribute the source code with any binaries you distribute. If no one outside your client's company will receive binaries of your program, then no one but your client is required to have the source code made available to them.

Thank you for your inaccurate trolling.

Gotta trackback...

[BrynM]

For those who don't RTFA, you should. The second trackback from the post on the 18th points to a post on Rakaz's blog (he's the author of phpAdsNew) from the 19th. They admit guilt and dig their hole deeper. Damn. They're SCOing themselves in the foot.

MXS responds [rakaz.nl]... round 2 from rakaz Totally out of the blue I received an e-mail from Jonathan Miller at Maui X-Stream. Okay, not totally out of the blue, but still a bit unexpected. In this email Jonathan concedes that VX30 Ad-Stats......

Get this quote: "As I believe you are aware we do have a product called VX30 Ad-Stats that is based upon phpAdsNew." - Jonathan Miller of Maui X-Stream

Darl must be beaming and handing out cigars by now...

Innovation

[/ASCII]

Maui does seem to have a new mode of operation here. Whenever somone proves that they stole some source code, they say 'Oh, that... Yeah that was just a bit of test code we borrowed. The new release is clean.' Then they release a new version which is identical to the old version, except maybe they altered some text strings to make the release appear to be different.

READ THE LICENSE before you blog about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because someone is selling something with GPL code, it doesn't mean they also have to offer the source files for everyone to download, but they do have to make it available for no more than a nominal fee to those they distribute it to.

YES THEY DO HAVE TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. The only way to avoid that is to ship the source with the binaries. Otherwise you have to give the source to anyone who asks ("any third party") for no more than a nominal fee.

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[DaHat]

Partially correct, it says that you can distribute the code with the binaries, which would be 3a. You can also go with 3b and/or 3c by including a written offer simply saying "ask us for the code within the next 3 years and we'll give it to you" and attach a note saying "the source code is here" respectively.

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Here's not advice:
Exchange your lawer for one that actually knows his trade.

IANAL: but the GPL FAQ clearly states that output generated by a GPL program isn't covered by the GPL, so it's 100% safe to use programs like GCC for compiling your program.

And another thing, pretty much all Open Source licenses only "restrict" you in one way when you distribute your creation. If it's kept in private you are not "restricted".

Re:So..

[/ASCII]

That question is pretty easy to answer. It is ok to use GPLed code in a beta of your closed source software to 'test stuff' so long as you don't distribute it.

So by the first _public_ beta, that code had better be gone, before that it's all fair play.

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[Anonymous Coward]

So what is stopping them from removing the copyright notices? Its not the GPL is it?

FFS yes! Did you ever consider reading the license?

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

Re:Innovation

[sosume]

I compared the source code, and except for the copyright banners, they just did a global search-and-replace to change phpAds to AdStats.. pretty lame imo.

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[Zontar The Mindless]

This is nothing more than a copy and paste troll.

Please come up with something original.

Thanks.

What ELSE has Maui stolen?

[strider44]

Here's a list of their products [vx30.com].

Re:So..

[lokedhs]

All you have to do is encrypt it (with a simple decrypter built in). IIRC, the DMCA disallows you from breaking an encryption.

Disclaimer: I'm not in the US so I don't really keep track of that that law says

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[arkanes]

FYI: Parent is a standard cut & paste troll that gets posted in pretty much any Linux/GPL related story.

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[SillyNickName4me]

I can not use GPL code with other code that is not licensed under the GPL. The GPL is incompatible with every other licence I've seen. Every other licence I've seen is incompatible with precisely one licence

I suggest you take a look at the 2 clause BSD license, you may find that:
1. It is compatible with the GPL
2. The GPL is compatible with it
3. There is quite a bit of software around that uses it and you might find the things you need among thoat.

Not to mention the fact that while you have to distribute source code for your modifications on a GPLed program, there is nothing whatsoever preventing you from building an application on top of Linux for example and distribute only the binaries for that application.

You seem to be lacking a bit of information here.

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[arkanes]

We do. I just disagree with the suggestion that the GPL is the only license that grants rights. I argue that in some cases it takes away rights.

It's certainly not the only license that grants rights - when stated like this, people are normally comparing the GPL to an EULA from a users perspective, rather than to a commercial library license from a developers perspective. However, it does *not* take away rights. Ever. If you're creating a derived work, you *never* had the right to distribute that work. This, of course, is true of any license for a software library - it'd be pretty useless otherwise. From a developers perspective, the GPL restricts the developer in order to presever the freedom of the user. This is something that a great many people do not understand, and many people who do understand it don't like it because they want to sell closed source applications. Which is fine with me, as far as it goes, because I'm not as extreme as RMS is. But understanding why the GPL does what it does is important to using it properly.

Re:So..

[zerbot]

$150. You could get the source from someone else who had it, or if you had internet access you could ftp it. Stallman freely admits he was trying to find a way to make money from free software cuz he was broke.

Re:So..

[DavidTC]

Stallman wasn't selling the 'source', he was selling everything for $150. Source, binaries, he was selling a tape of GPL software for $150. (I think it had binaries on it.)

The GPL itself prohibits selling the source to people who you gave binaries to for anything except a nominal cost, and Stallman of all people knows that.

It doesn't, however, prohibit selling the binaries for any amount you want, or selling the source and binaries on the same medium for any amount you want, or selling the source for any amount to people you haven't given binaries to.