VX30 Ad-Stats Code Online 248
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.'"
Gotta trackback... (Score:5, Informative)
Darl must be beaming and handing out cigars by now...
Re:Gotta trackback... (Score:3, Funny)
I'll add this to my lexicon. SCO has become an Action Verb !!
Time to remake Schoolhouse Rock
Re:Gotta trackback... (Score:3, Insightful)
If nominalization in English is acceptable, I would hope the opposite (verbification) is OK. Among other languages, Japanese and Latin both have it.
Please, just give me one reason why what the gp said was poor communication (and that is, after all, the whole point of language -- to communicate).
Re:Gotta trackback... (Score:2)
Re:Gotta trackback... (Score:2)
Re:Isn't Drunken Blog also violating? (Score:2)
Huh? The source is exactly what they're distributing.
Re:Isn't Drunken Blog also violating? (Score:2)
Fun fact: had they kept the copyright/GPL license information and just 'rebranded' it, with full source, it would be LEGAL. Including selling it, as long as the source code is freely available under GPL (which in this case might make selling it bit harder, but then again, I guess whoever they are selling it to now are not the brightest of the bunch anyway, so I don't see the problem)
Some people just don't get GPL...
Re:Isn't Drunken Blog also violating? (Score:2)
It is odd that the VX30 folks included the License file, but removed the copyright notices.
Re:Isn't Drunken Blog also violating? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't Drunken Blog also violating? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't Drunken Blog also violating? (Score:2)
Innovation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Informative)
What ELSE has Maui stolen? (Score:5, Interesting)
A slippery slope.
What ELSE has Maui stolen? (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps it's time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Perhaps it's time... (Score:5, Funny)
When PHBs see our 733T audits-required letters, they'll _finally_ take Open Source seriously, because everyone knows you're not a serious player in this biz unless you send threatening letters by the dozen.
Re:Perhaps it's time... (Score:3, Funny)
Pfss, and you call yourselves 1337.
Re:Perhaps it's time... (Score:2, Funny)
i have suspicions about this, (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
this not about profits (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:i have suspicions about this, (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is compliance with the license. If you do not comply with the license the software is distributed under, you have no right to it. Comply with the terms of the license, or remove the unlicensed code. (Note: The previous statement is not license-specific. It applies to *ALL* licenses.)
Re:i have suspicions about this, (Score:2)
Where exactly?
The GPL says that if you distribute a binary to a third party you must make the source available to that party without additional cost. Also that you must clearly indicate any changes which you have made.
It would be possible to have a licence requiring redistribution of modified code, but that licence would be something other than the GPL. Anyway such
Community problem? Business ethics! (Score:5, Insightful)
Only when the first cases are brought before court, we might see an improvement. Until that moment, this will continue.
Re:Community problem? Business ethics! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Community problem? Business ethics! (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone takes that program, makes a few changes and releases it as their own.
You take legal action against them for "GPL violation" all you're really doing is being a prick.
"
Actually they're being a prick.
You see, they took the code but failed to open source it.
We code our hearts out and open source something only to have someone steal it, enhance it, and then not release the code like we did?
That's pretty prickish to me. That's like 'Hey, cool, nice code, lets fix this, there, and there, BUY OUR PRODUCT (source not included) PROFIT!!!'
In this case, the original developers of the code can't apply the enhancements made to their code. That isn't fair, or morally acceptable.
Threatoning to sue them if they don't open source their product under the GPL swiftly isn't being a prick, it's only fair.
Community ethics? Business ethics! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Community problem? Business ethics! (Score:2)
What you're really doing is Ethics 101. There was a deal involved. The deal is "you can use this, if you share it as well". Someone broke the deal. That's both immoral and illegal. Taking action isn't pricky, it's justified, required and absolutely the only option that makes any sense, both from a rational and ethical point of view.
Re:Community problem? Business ethics! (Score:5, Insightful)
Although *technically* you are justified for taking action, in reality, all you're really doing is being a prick.
I think you missed the money aspect of it here. Personally, if someone's going to make money out of selling the product of my labour, I'm willing to let it go if they abide by the GPL - but if they don't abide by the GPL and they're making money out of it, I want to see some of that money. And/or I want them to stop.
I think that people from most political ideologies - from free market to Marxist - can agree that for another person to take the product of your labour, and sell it without your permission, and give you nothing in recompense, is immoral. Who exactly is being a prick here?
Also, the whole point of the GPL, the intention of it, is to stop things like this happening. Putting the GPL on something is like putting a big sign on it saying "DO NOT TURN THIS INTO PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE WITHOUT MY PERMISSION!"
It's not a technicality. It's the whole point of the GPL!
A suggestion for an Open Source business model (Score:2)
1. Identify companies who are violating the GPL by secretly incorporating it into their proprietary products.
2. Make licensing arrangements with the Open Source authors involved, so as to be able to sue on their behalf. Register the copyrights involved on behalf of the authors (this allows increased damage awards for willful copyright violation, IIRC)
3. Contact the GPL violators and get them to comply and pay a please-go-a
I don't see it (Score:4, Funny)
How could this be copying code?
And as for all the function bodies being exactly the same code, well, it's a miracle. I guess good programmers all format their code exactly the same, use the same comments, and even misspell the same comments. Uhm, I gotta go.
Sincerely,
Maui X^H^H^H^H^H^H Someone with no financial interest in the outcome of this situation
GPL *AND* DMCA violation (Score:5, Insightful)
I looked into the Maui X stuff and checked, and yes, they are very cleraly violating the GPL. It strikes me, however, that by making it impossible to obtain the source code, they are circumventing the technological measure of access control (namely, the source code in ASCII form).
The DMCA doesn't necessarily require an access control measure to lock someone out of access to a work (how it is typically employed). Specifically, a technical measure is:
I'd argue that distributing source code so as to grant access to the work is an effective measure to do so, and that in the normal course of it's operation (communicating the structure of an application) that it requires the application of information (headers, expert knowledge, software analysis tools), a process or treatment (at the very least, a system tath can decode ASCII and render it as glyphs on a display or printed page), and the authority of the copyright owner (a license; namely the GPL).
It seems to mee that if you contact their ISP you can have their site shut down. Further, you can complain to the FBI since it's now a federal criminal complaint:
TFA contains gratuitous private info, like O'gara (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:4, Informative)
Thank you for your inaccurate trolling.
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2, Informative)
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?
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:5, Informative)
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:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
What is a "creation" to you? Is it the modified source code or the output of the program? I don't know how it works in the USA but french laws say that you own the output of every program you use (Word document, Photoshop picture, source code compiled with gcc or Lex/Yacc output...)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
However it should be noted that if a program links against a GPL'd library then the product of that operation needs to comply with the GPL.
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL is not holding the GNU/Linux OS itself back, only people who want to hoard the code. If you use the software only in-house then there are some limited exceptions within the GPL, so you again should get a better lawyer.
"no business will ever be able to use it. "
Well IBM and many other companies have been able to get on with it. The GPL divides smart and innovative people from the cut and paste brigade. If you can't make a profit then it is your own stupid fault.
"Its draconian requirements"
You are clearly confused and are reading the situation backwards. A normal software license gives you no rights to use the code at all.
The GPL however gives you all the rights but one: you do not have the right to remove the rights of others. You can use the code that has been created at much expense only if you do not attempt to make free software unfree.
No one is forcing you to use GPL'd code. If you want to buy in code to save time then you have to pay for it. The cost for GPL'd software is that you have to share improvements.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, stop crying about it and get on with your life.
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:3, Interesting)
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 fro
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:3, Insightful)
>deliberately designed to be incompatible with other
>licences. Many other vendors bar us from releasing
>their code
See, it's not the GPL, it's the programmers that chose to license their work under the GPL.
You whould think of it as "The programmers bar us from *not* releasing their code."
BTW, if you some vendors bar you from releasing *their* code, can you please explain what does "None of them make any requirements on derived works." mean?
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2, Interesting)
We can still release our own code if we use their code.
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
You got it all wrong. Naturally you can release your code. You can do whatever you want as long as there is no GPL code in it.
You can even release it if it contains GPL code, you just have to license it under GPL as well.
You have made it pretty clear that you don't like the GPL. However, you must understand that whoever releases his code under GPL does *NOT* want you to use it in any other way. Respect their wishes and go on with your programm
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:3, Informative)
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. Th
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2, Interesting)
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 e
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
Not exactly.
The GPL may have played a role there, but the advertising clause was problematic in general.
Btw, the x.org license is also compatible with the GPL.
Yes, but the basic point that GPL software is incompatible with a lot of other software, purely for legal reasons, still remains. It is the only licence that causes
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
Depends on your definition of "use".
Use as in running such software for whatever purpose? the GPL is very clear about that, it puts NO restrictions on that whatsoever.
Use as in incorporate it into their own products or derive from it? That you cannot do that unless you (can) comply with the GPL is the entire point of the GPL, so I would somehow think they are aware of that....
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
No, for the simple reason that this is not true.
Your inability to comply with the GPL is the consequence of choices you are making. Those choices may work better for you but they are choices. Make a different choice and you can comply.
The choice might be to write your own implementations of things that currently make it impossible for you to comply with the GPL, or make the choice to not use GPLed software.
You want to eat yo
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
You don't, you write your own, or you use a setup where you do not have to link to it.
Well, yes. We could write totally different software. Alternatively we could open a shoe shop.
Thats your choice.
Which is hardly practical, and still not always possible. What about patents?
Hardly practical? There are thousands of examples of how practical this is. It will cost you something in the form of time and efford.
Patents have noth
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
It does not prevent you from making this combination, that the end result will be GPL licensed does not change that. It is a limitation on what you can do, sure. You can argue that that means that they are not compatible there.
The GPL is a very special license and does only serve some very special purposes. For many cases there are better licenses.
No argument there, you might
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:3, Insightful)
>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.
Ok, i'll bite..
1) If another license is less restrictive than GPL that means that you are allowed to change the license for that code (considering that this is basically the restriction GPL enforces). So you can GPL the code, and the license is compatible with GPL.
2) If the l
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:3, Interesting)
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 t
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:3, Insightful)
They'd have to WORK for it. And even that patch to allow all the functions of the program to be accessible by API would be a huge plus.
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
I do not know why any company has thought about it...
This has been discussed many times (along with the "I'll just create a plug-in protocol and distribute the GPL'd code with a wrapper that
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:4, Informative)
Please come up with something original.
Thanks.
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
Please, do not feed the trolls.
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
Having worked with Token Ring... (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously...I have seen this exact text before. The author seems to have an agenda.
If you don't want to release the source code to your customer (who, by the way, paid you for "your hard work"), don't use GPL'd code as a basis for your work. Write it all yourself from scratch. Then, you own it all!
And, by the way, using GCC does not in any way, subject the code you compile with it, to the GPL.
I'd suggest you get
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
If someone else knows, can he/she post the
I am sure I've seen it before but I can not find it with
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:2)
Re:The GPL isn't all that (Score:3, Insightful)
You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about, neither technically nor legally.
Also, you were surprised that your access to the source code came with some conditions? Please remind me to never hire you as a consultant. Checking facts like that first before you invest considerable time and money is one of the most basic skills you should have.
btw.: It's not copyrighted under the GPL, i
Re:So.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So.. (Score:2)
Re:So.. (Score:2)
The DMCA does not make reverse-engineering illegal.
It makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection schemes, which often involves reverse engineering. This is more pedantic than anything in this situation.
Re:So.. (Score:2)
Sorry, couldn't resist...
Re:So.. (Score:3, Informative)
Disclaimer: I'm not in the US so I don't really keep track of that that law says
Re:So.. (Score:5, Informative)
So by the first _public_ beta, that code had better be gone, before that it's all fair play.
Re:So.. (Score:2)
Re:So.. (Score:3, Interesting)
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 th
easy (Score:2)
Re:easy (Score:2)
So do you work for Microsoft? They would love that statment.
Re:easy (Score:2)
There are other tests to determine if something is infringing. It c
Re:easy (Score:2)
Probably right, but you're playing with fire. Once you've seen something, it's hard to do it again the exact same way without even thinking about it. This, if it goes to court, could be found infringing. May not make sense, but that's the way courts (inconsistently, depending on which district) have been applying the law.
IANAL, but I've been adicted to Groklaw ever since SCO sued IBM. A while back these topics were discussed ex
Re:So.. (Score:2)
When you comply with the conditions of the GPL. i.e. if you don't redistribute it to third parties or if you do you make the source available and don't dictate who they can and can't distribute the code to.
How long is it untill people start to use GPL code in closed source software and sue anyone who reversse engineers it?
Effectivly this would be commercial software piracy. That the code in question was GPL isn't relevent. Taking someone else's code and redistributin
Re:So.. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:So.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So.. (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:So.. (Score:2)
Pay attention to the quotes from Stallman. Back in those days, everybody pretty much would have compiled their own, prebuilt binaries were largely confined to proprietary vendors targeting a particular platform.
These days, with the standarization of libraries, and POSIX conformance being important, it is much easier to distribute binaries.
I do see your point, but the historical perspective on the time is that Stallman probably never gave or so
Re:READ THE LICENSE before you blog about it (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I think this may be moot in actual practice... (Score:2)
In actual practice, however, I think the question is moot. My reasoning is this:
Once *anyone* has received a copy of the source from the company that sold the binaries, they can (and, given the folks who bother to do the requesting, at least one person likely will) distribute the source to EVERYONE else without restriction.
This means that once ONE copy
Re:READ THE LICENSE before you blog about it (Score:2)
"Everyone" therefore means "everyone who has the binary".
Re:Thieves (Score:2)
Only the copyright owner can sue them.
Re:Enforcement (Score:2, Interesting)
No Dispute about GPL enforcability (Score:2)
The GPL is not a contract. It is a grant of copyright under specific terms. One of the fundamental ideas of copyright is this: you cannot publish a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright owner. That's what the GPL is, permission from the copyright owner. The GPL outlines the conditions under which you may use the copyrighted work.
One of the reasons t
Re:"free" software (Score:2)