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.'"

What ELSE has Maui stolen?

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

OK, so they denied taking something and it was proven (at least to my satisfaction) that they did. Now Maui is "coming clean" that they "borrowed" GPL code and want to play nice. I guess they figure it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. It makes me wonder if their other products have similar issues.
A slippery slope.

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[trandism]

We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution. Releasing Code is NOT giving away your work. Applying the same logic, one could say that those people who made the kernel GAVE AWAY their work to you. You could 'touch' kernel and give back to the community that gave you the kernel in the first place.

Re:So..

[michaelhood]

Thanks to the DMCA, how will we (those of us in the US, or countries willing to extradite) even know if GPL code is in closed source software? We can't reverse engineer to find out!

Re:READ THE LICENSE before you blog about it

[drunkenbatman]

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.

I was going by the GPL FAQ, which I've found to be very helpful but I could be misinterpreting something... Under "If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge? [fsf.org]

"No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public."

The GPL FAQ [fsf.org], under "What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what??" says:

""Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you."

It would appear someone would have to receive that 'offer' in some way (I.E., the company distributed it to them) in order to be entitled to ask for the source, with the 'third party' bit coming in once a fellow user distributes it to you. Basically, if the company or someone else hasn't given you the software, the company doesn't have to give you anything.

Like I said, I could well be misinterpreting.

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[91degrees]

You are clearly confused and are reading the situation backwards. A normal software license gives you no rights to use the code at all.

Not true at all. The software we release uses source code under about a dozen different licences. None of them make any requirements on derived works. Al of them are compatible with each other. Many of them are negotiable.

The GPL is inconvenient in that it appears to be deliberately designed to be incompatible with other licences. Many other vendors bar us from releasing their code. As such there's no way we could possibly use GPL code in our applications. As such, it removes the right to use GPL code with non-GPL code

Perhaps it's time...

[Senor_Programmer]

for investigative and prosecutorial branches in the OSS legal community. It might well be self supported from awards and even generate some $ to put in developers pockets.

i have suspicions about this,

[Adult film producer]

It sounds all too much like an elaborate marketing scheme on their part. The formula is pretty simple. Build a junk product, use gpl'ed code, make sure someone in the oss community noticed you're not handing out the modified source, let them howl for a few months, brand recognition goes through the roof!

There's no such thing as bad press right ? Slashdot & everybody else shouldn't feed them what they want.. keep quiet and have the EFF sue their asses.

Like I said, this is gotta be a junk product they're building. I don't know what the hell it is and have not read the article(s) here on slashdot.

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[91degrees]

If, and only if, you distribute the code.

Which is kinda what we do.

Also, the license is negotiable, if you can get all authors to the table.

There's the problem. If we want to use any other code, we talk to a single person. It's a lot easier.

There is nothing to the GPL that is more problematic than a proprietary license. If you think there is, name it and we'll be sure to prove you wrong.

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 - The GPL.

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[91degrees]

So you want to distribute other people's work without following their rules?

No. We want the rules to allow us to agree to other people's rules for their code as well. The GPL does not allow this, hence we don't use GPL code.

If you're going to harvest the power of Open Source, you'll have to accept that it comes with responsibilities.

We do, and we do. We just don't use GPL code, because it is incompatible with other licences.

It's no different than with any other license.

Yes it is. Other licences are compatible with each other.

If you prefer to pay someone money for code, that's your problem.

We prefer not to. At times we have to. You'd be surprised how much code does not have a GPL licenced equivalent. Since we don't want to rewrite this from scratch, we tendto buy a licence. This precludes us from using any GPL code in the entire application.

If you think that other licenses are more negotiable, why don't you negotiate with these authors to make their license compatible with the GPL?

So, you can be absolutely sure that all potential software companies whose software we might want to use could be persuaded to allow us unlimited licence to sell copies of their software at a lower cost than them? Given that these companies make 100% of their revenue from selling copies of their software, I consider this unlikely. If you think they will dop this then you are rather naive about the realities of the software industry.

Name one other licence that makes demands on how software it is linked with may and may not be distributed. All of our software could be distributed with or without source, for free or for a fee. The only exception is the specific code that we have licenced from another company.

Of course, then there's the other problem. If we violate the licence of a commercial company, we have a legal problem. If we violate the GPL, not only do we have a legal problem. We have a PR problem.

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[xtracto]

I am a programmer although actually I have stoped programming for quite some time (because I am making my PhD now) but, I think there is a really easy way of using GPL'd code in a closed source project, how?

APIs.

Ok, imagine I want to use some GPL'd source code program with some other propietary code I have written, well, what I will do is create a "distribution" CD with my program, in which I will put the GPL'd code, and I will add some API's which will be de MODIFICATION to the GPL'd program, of course those APIs would be open, and I will also add my Closed Source (i.e. commercial) software, which, uses the API I created to call the other program.

If the FSF, GPL's guys get really pissing then instead of an API I would use a TCP socket communication protocol, or whatever is needed, of course I WILL have to donate/open the code for the communication mechanism, but, I will be able to have my closed source program intact because they are 2 different programs.

I do not know why any company has thought about it...

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[91degrees]

Fine, you don't want to obey the rules, so we'll just pinch your work in return.

What gives you the right to do this? We can't follow the rules, so we don't use GPLed code.

Also, your complaint is even MORE true of, say Microsoft's license. It's compatible with itself and that's all.

Really? We don't use any Microsoft source (not sure who does), but what specific clauses do they have that prevent their code from being used with other people's? Most companies have a allow us to distribute for a flat fee, or a per copy fee, often with limitiations that prevent our customers from distributing copies. All of these work reasonably well together. We can't take advantage of all the rights of a licence that allows redistribution, but since we're not obliged to, we don't.

Re:The GPL isn't all that

[91degrees]

some vendors bar you from releasing *their* code, can you please explain what does "None of them make any requirements on derived works." mean?

We can still release our own code if we use their code.

Re:So..

[LWATCDR]

The other question is when are you actually using GPL code?
If you look at a piece of FOSS and then write a program that is similar is that a violation of the GPL?
If you do not cut and paste the code is it okay? How much code can you cut and paste before you are under the GPL. If I look at DBM an decide I want to use the hash function as a small part of closed source or even a BSD program will I be in Violation if I.
a. Cut and paste the one function into my code.
b. Type in the function by hand.
c. Re write the function using different identifiers.
e. convert it to a different language like Pascal, ADA, perl, python, or java?

Be careful how strict you want it to be. Remember the laws that effect the GPL also effect closed source as well. Too strict and you could effectively make every programmer a slave to what ever project they have worked on in the past. You could make it totally illegal for someone that worked on a GPL program from working on a BSD project. Or anyone that ever worked on a closed source project from ever working on an OSS project.

Re:Enforcement

[astro_ripper]

Maybe you're joking, but there's a simple explaination for some of the companies that "shamelessly violate it." 1) Lets say you're a college student and you and your friends make, lets say, a simple blog engine in C++. Company XYZ comes along, steals it, changes some text and sells it. Do you have the funds to sue? Do you have the time? What if only one of you wrote it? 2) The "companies" that steal code are often small, one or two man jobs. Not real companies by any stretch, just a single somewhat talented coder who decided to be unethical.

TFA contains gratuitous private info, like O'gara

[dmh20002]

TFA is great work and right on target, but too bad the blog also stoops to doing some personal snooping and posting links to some personal info stuff about a couple of people involved. That brings it almost to the level of the O'gara stuff about PJ. It even points out one person's religion (ala OGara), as if that matters. You could argue that its part of the investigation of who is who in this affair. Thats a judgement call, I suppose. To me it was gratuitous.