Maui X-Stream: GPL Violations, Lies, and Damn Lies 444
Jeremy writes "Drunkenbatman is at it again. This time he takes apart Maui X-Stream and all the who and whats that go along with it. Deconstructing Maui X-Stream has GPL Violations with reproducable proof (not done this myself), chat logs, and double talk from the CEO's and supposed authors of the software."
Re:Its not such a big deal (Score:2, Insightful)
If you really want to use a freely available operating system but don't want to redistribute the source, look into a BSD licensed OS. I prefer OpenBSD myself but FreeBSD, NetBSD, Dragonfly and heck 4.4 lite are all sitting out there and are just waiting to be used. You may have heard of some of the smaller companies that use BSD code in their products; MSFT and Apple come to mind.
Everyone has some sort of restriction to what you can do with their stuff. While I don't believe your lawyer is correct with the gcc thing, directly modifying GPL code requires you to do X Y and Z. Z in this case is make your changes available so others can build on your nifty tool. Tivo releases some of their source, uses some LGPL code and simply has stuff they can't or are unwilling to release in their own complete binaries. Go figure, there are ways even if you can't use GPLed code directly with your stuff.
You really need to get a better grasp on the work that you do. I mean, it is not like you were shocked SHOCKED I say when Microsoft asked for money with their product were you? Linus, RMS and the rest just want their fair compensation too, just not in money.
Although the gcc thing sounds like garbage to me I will say theGPL font thing really needs to be hashed out for GPL3. I assume it will be.
I hate it when I feed trolls.
MXS = Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The problem is the penalty (Score:1, Insightful)
It's like in the 'real world' - if there are laws that no-one enforces, people just ignore them.
Commercial software pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source is so good so many companies claim it as their own in their products without credit. How tough is it to say "Built on Open Source with credits to...."? I know of dozens of "appliance like" devices that are like this. When you ask the vendor they say "we wrote it all" and just by the look and field you know Squid/BSD/OpenSSL/SSH are at minimum inside.
Make no mistake, the commercial software industry is the biggest pirate of code there is on the face of this planet. All developers routinely use google to search for code snipits and these programmers are from big companies like Oracle and IBM to little startups of all kinds. At least IBM acknowledges it's involvement and contributes to many like Linux.
Most companies should not be embarrassed, to me it is a selling point as no one company can do it all.
One un-named company actually had the gall to tell one of my managers they "Invented Spam Assassin". Needless to say I sufficiently set management straight by a few select web pages and suggested if they lie to us now what will the support be like?
Don't deal with companies that lie about the origins of their product.
appropriate response to (Score:1, Insightful)
not unless directed to do so by the courts
Make them spend the time and money.
If courts tell you to provide the list, then respond with a blank sheet of paper.
It's only fitting to use their own lawyers against them...
Re:But this is a problem (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:But this is a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
If you use GPL code, admit it, and release it.
It's pretty simple, there is no reason to make mistakes.
You're harming open source!
I prefer the term helping.
If people who don't want to follow the intent of the GPL are scared to use it GOOD.
We don't need to waste time and energy enforcing the GPL. Better to have those who would violate it not bother from the start. It's better for us, it's better for them.
Re:But this is a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
it's *very* simple to have an ftp server with the source code
it's very simple to use CVS to host your project on source forge
so, we'll keep shouting, thank you very much, we don't need no stinkin' favours
Re:Its not such a big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not completely true. You are only required to give the modified source to people to whom you give the modified kernel, at no additional cost. Of course they have the right to distribute it further.
For internal projects (where you don't distribute binaries at all), this means that you don't have any obligations at all. Only if you distribute the compiled code, you have to distribute the source along with it.
But of course, if you base your business on distributing binaries based on secret proprietary changes of existing code, then GPLed code isn't for you.
And this one is completely wrong. There are absolutely no requirements on code compiled by gcc or other GPLed compiler, except if that requirement comes from elsewhere (if you link a GPLed library, compiling with gcc will of course not void the requirements from that). Moreover the libraries which come with GCC have an explicit exception so that linking to them (which is more or less unavoidable) will not cause your code to be covered by the GPL).
Why didn't you just use some BSD variant? This would have given you all you wanted: Ability to freely modify the source code, and the ability to distribute the resulting binary code without passing on the source modifications. Moreover, being also an Unix-workalike, you probably wouldn't even have had to rewrite most of your code from scratch (of course those parts dealing directly with the kernel would have to be rewritten anyway).
You know, there's more in the Open Source world than GPL and Linux. Sometimes you can have your cake (keep your changes for yourself) and eat it, too (get source code for free, with the right to modify as you please).
BTW, it's just silly to base development on some code before checking the license. You cannot blame the GPL for not making your homework of actually examining it. I hope for you that you didn't make the same error again, and this time asked your lawyers about the details of (now Microsoft's) license in advance.
So what exactly is unfair with the GPL? It didn't fit your business model, that's all. And what's more fair on MS's "Shared Source"? I don't think I'd be able to freely distribute modified versions of it in source form, so I could as well consider it unfair that I may not just distribute my own work based on it freely. If you want something with no strings attached, go BSD.
Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
So lemme get this straight: he actually _plans_ to break copyright law, and is shocked that people would not take to it kindly?
Would he prefer the way the BSA treats copyright violations with other software? Yeah, I don't think those would post flames on a board. They'd just show up for an audit and sue his pants off. Very professionally and without any flaming or venom involved.
Also it seems to me like there aren't many ways to make just "the slightest mistake" or "only a perceived mistake" under the GPL. Either you publish your own source code under GPL too, or you don't. I don't think it's possible to get flamed or "spend the next 10 months dealing with these people" if you did publish your code.
And if someone did post a bullshit thread, you just point them to the FTP or HTTP URL where they can get the code, and that's the end of it there and then. Hardly takes 10 months to cut and paste an URL.
It seems to me like all the flames I've seen so far on this subject were on stuff that was a _very_ clear case of GPL violation. I.e., people who hadn't released any code, and/or outright lied about using GPLed code at all. There's nothing "slight" or "perceived" about it.
So your boss's problem is...? Was he planning to be in that category, or? Lemme guess... He wanted to just "slightly", "mistakenly" forget to comply with the GPL, right? I.e., again, copyright law violation.
"Stop the hysteria, people. You're harming open source!"
I'm not even too pro-open source, yet I fail to see how this is harming anything. That it stops some people from breaking the license? I hardly consider _that_ to be any harm.
Look, as I've said before, I'm not even really pro-GPL, but like any other license it's a case of "take it or leave it". You get someone's code, there is a license to observe and a price to pay for it. In this case, the price is _your_ code. If you can't pay the price, don't use the product. It's that simple.
It's not even about GPL. I think the same about any other software and any other license. And especially for people making a living from software, I find it _lame_ when then they go and steal someone else's software. Whether it's by working with pirated copies of Visual Studio or breaking the GPL, I find it inherently abhorrent that someone would show so little respect for the very field they work in.
So again, the damage is...? That it caused someone to think twice about theft? I hardly think that stopping theft ammounts to causing harm.
It's all about intent and opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
By downloading the song and listening to it you are not claiming you wrote it, sang it, or even bought it.
Now, if you go out and sell said song at ANY price - there is the violation of the download.
Most people who feel filesharing of songs is ok - also feel as if it's promotion for the artist. I download rather infrequently - but MANY MANY of my friends buy music based on what they hear in my car and I also go to concerts and promote iTunes downloads on my website!
Re:interesting read (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope like hell this guy doesnt get his ass sued off. If what he says is true, he didn't do anything wrong. I like reading his blog so it would be a shame for him to be sued into oblivion.
And I also hope that something good comes out of it for him and all the projects these maui xtream guy ripped off. If that video streaming crap is true and they are selling it for $10,000 a pop, maybe there is some money to be had for some very worthy OSS projects.
Re:But this is a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
It's these companies that sneak around like weenie-waggers and wave their cartoonie lawyers instead when they get caught that get the flames.
Re:What a sec... Flawed Assumption (Score:4, Insightful)
How can you support that?
Re:Heh (Score:3, Insightful)
So his boss is affraid of... what?
Of falling in that category? Well, that's very very easy to avoid. Noone accused, say, PGCC of being a GPL violation of GCC, because, surprise, PGCC was GPLed too. Apple also wasn't accused of anything when they based Safari on Konqueror, because, again, they did release the changed sources.
Of being accused of violating the GPL for the clearly distinct programs that aren't based on GPL sources? Well, that's again very easy to avoid. Just make those programs very clearly distinct programs. I don't think anyone accused, say, SuSE or Mandrake of GPL violations for including proprietary software (e.g., ATI or NVidia drivers or RealPlayer) on the same CD with the rest of their Linux distro.
So all that remains is one of the following:
1. Either his boss is utterly retarded, or
2. His boss was just looking for an excuse to avoid GPL anyway, and grasped at the nearest straw, or
3. His boss was actually planning to be in the category that gets flamed or sued over GPL violations, meaning the ones actually violate it.
Take your own pick there.
Re:Heh (Score:2, Insightful)
It's easy to say [paraphrased] "if someone posts bullshit, just point them to the truth and that's the end of it", but a cursory analysis of human nature, group dynamics and online behavior suggests that ... you don't know what you're talking about.
The POINT being that if people are afraid to touch GPL because it looks like a third-rail risk, then they won't use it.
Your response, "Make a mistake :== planned IP theft" pretty much validates the boss's position.
QED.
Letters from the lame. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. You're full of shit and have no intention of pursuing legal action, because if you really did, you would have run the situation past your attorney before sending the letter.
2. You're not even a decent businessman, because any businessman with a clue knows that legal matters are best left to attorneys.
Re:This happens more often than you think... (Score:3, Insightful)
That was interesting. I spent the first half of reading your account thinking what a smug annoying dick you were (mainly due to the "No, you're not one of me. You could never be one of me." comment). Then I got to the bit where the Sony guy said "We don't really care about that. Go ahead, sue us and see how far you get..." and I was deeply impressed with your restraint.
I think I might have politely asked to see his Clie so I could show him something, then smashed the screen on the corner of the seat and quietly handed it back to him.
I mean, what's he going to do? :-)
Re:What a sec... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Commercial software pirates (Score:4, Insightful)
so long as you a million or so to fund the case
Re:But this is a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
If instead you make an offer to get the source, you pretty much need to hand it out to everyone that comes knocking.
You can also provide an ftp server but that is not necessary. But there are a number of companies that do nothing, and when you try to get the source as required, the companies try to brush you off.
To give a comparison, if you are gracious and loan out your basketball as a kid and then some bully refuses to give it back, you will rightfully be upset. In the future you will be very careful who you let use your ball.
Brain, meet logic (Score:3, Insightful)
And for non-US people this would mean...?
This wasn't exactly a huge leap in logic to figure out, much less rocket science.
Re:Looks like they're dead? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This happens more often than you think... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:sound sliek he is winning (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about how many copyright violations of business software are in *businesses* out there.
Think about how we have a group of storm troopers (the BSA) dedicated to eradicate that, who have almost unlimited budgets.
The GPL is enforcable. Much like most other licenses.
The problem is that nearly anything is difficult to enforce in the legal system, EVEN IF you are a huge company.
Let alone a small group (or solo) of underfunded developers.
Re:Pirates on All Sides (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, let's see if we can't deal with this tired old shit once and for all.
Imagine 2 groups of Slashdot readers - A & B.
Group A supports music piracy
Group B is against GPL violations
While these 2 groups may coincide to some extent, they do not completely coincide. There are members of Group B that are not also members of Group A. Your statment does not allow this possibility. It is therefore retarded.
Second point - there is a difference between a)making an unauthorised copy of a CD and b) making an unauthorised copy of a CD, claiming that you produced it and then selling it on (i.e what Maui X-Stream are doing). Your statement makes no allowance for this possibility. It is therefore retarded on a second count.
Therefore I contend that you are
a) Retarded
b) Trolling
And as such, I suggest that you:
a) Seek remedial education
b) Go fuck yourself
From my viewpoint (Score:4, Insightful)
However, if somebody copies my program, removes my name from it, and claims that they made it without giving me any credit whatsoever, I'd be royally pissed off.
I'm don't really support movie/music downloading (neither do I support *AA political lobbying though), but the downloaders aren't taking the latest N-Sync CD and trying to resell it while claiming that they produced it under the band name "Synced Up"
FBI involvement (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The problem is the penalty (Score:4, Insightful)
...except for the part where it grants less freedoms, such as: the freedom for a commercial entity to take your code and modify it, sell it, and not contribute any useful additions to the code back to the community who will benefit from them...
When you talk about Freedom, the BSD license is always going to come out second to the GPL (and even third to the LGPL) because it allows (and in most cases, encourages) abuse without any penalty. Most companies are scared of the GPL (and as well they should be) because they know it has teeth.
Use whatever works, I personally will NEVER use the BSD license in any projects I distribute to the public because it has too many restrictions that I don't like (as above).
Re:But this is a problem (Score:1, Insightful)
That's a serious allegation. Also false. Also it would be pointless. We make no money from software sales.
Only support and occasionally hardware.
Your boss was obviousally wanting to run wild and loose with the GPL and that is why he canned it. If he were to make sure that the code was released ans easily found on the website (big farking button that says download sourcecode here is too difficult to make?) he would have had zero worries or cares about it.
Yes, because the only people who could possibly have reservations about the GPL want to breach it.
We had no intention of doing this. We were simply concerned that people would accuse us of breaching the GPL when we hadn't.
You know.
A bit like what you're doing.
Re:The problem is the penalty (Score:3, Insightful)
You've missed my point.
I don't care if a company makes money from GPL code, and in fact I strongly enourage them to do so (as does the GPL itself).
What I do care about is a company taking my code, improving it, selling the version with those improvements, and not contributing those improvements back to the community that gave them the code in the first place.
It hurts the existing users of the code who can't take advantage of others improving that same code. Its restrictive.
I happen to appreciate lots of the snippets in the public domain, little "building blocks" that can be incorporated into other apps, but when a full application (covered by a license to redistribute, because licenses don't cover use, they cover redistribution) is created to help users and a selfish user or corporate entity refuses to help the same community that helped them (save money, save time, code, whatever), I have zero sympathy.