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."
Haven't we looked at this before? (Score:5, Funny)
The source may have been provided in a locked filing cabinet inside a disused toilet with a sign on the door saying "beward of the leopard", but it was made available.
Re:Haven't we looked at this before? (Score:4, Funny)
Ah, and of course the superblock had gone. As well as the partition table.
Re:Haven't we looked at this before? (Score:2)
-N
Re:I'm intrigued by this offer. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm intrigued by this offer. (Score:2)
Re:I'm intrigued by this offer. (Score:2)
Coral Cache (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.drunkenblog.com.nyud.net:8090/drunkenb
Re:Coral Cache (Score:3, Informative)
interesting read (Score:4, Interesting)
Just kidding obviously. I read through this last night (skipped a few parts here and there), but wow, talk about talking out your asshole! I can't wait to see if Maui X-Stream launches any lawsuits against drunkenbatman (or anyone else). Should be entertainment on the level of the SCO fiasco if it happens.
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 mo
Legal threats. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Legal threats. (Score:2)
Re:Legal threats. (Score:3, Interesting)
-eventhorizon
Re:Legal threats. (Score:4, Informative)
Let me add a little info to my post - do you know what they were complaining about? Jpeg images. Of a hex editor viewing strings in their binaries. Wow that's pretty illegal isn't it? lol - I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I got that. Just like MXS's lawyer said, "these links represent illegal activity" and earlier Jim Kartes told me that what I was doing was "extremely illegal". hehe
-eventhorizon
Re:Legal threats. (Score:3, Funny)
What do you expect? (Score:4, Interesting)
overwhelming evidence! Great article! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:overwhelming evidence! Great article! (Score:4, Interesting)
The people in charge of the groups that own the code should get together and give permission for something like FSF to pursue this case in court (FSF has a few lawyers, I believe), and FSF gets to keep any money won in the suit. This appears to be an open-and-shut case. X-Stream gets shut down, FSF can try to get a lot of money from them, and the general public gets the source code to this nice (if stolen) software. Sounds like a win-win proposition to me.
Re:overwhelming evidence! Great article! (Score:2)
Re:overwhelming evidence! Great article! (Score:4, Interesting)
Journalists/Press people have their job because they have the right face, hair, and name to be on TV. Other thant that, they are pretty much brain dead.
Haven't you noticed a lot of the big name news channels are actually reading news right from blogs now. CNN,MSNBC,etc have spots where they actually show the website and read the words off it. Its actually lame as shit. I think MSNBC has hot chicks that do it.
To honor drunkenbatman... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:overwhelming evidence! Great article! (Score:2, Funny)
The problem is the penalty (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why this keeps happening.
If I do this, and get caught...so what? What's the penalty? Exactly who is going to prosecute?
What if this CEO came right out and said "Yup, copied the whole damn thing from Sourceforge. What are you going to do about it?" What happens next?
PS: Not trolling, genuinely curious. All the focus seems to be on "Is the GPL enforcable", not "Who shall enforce it". And IMHO, both are important.
Re:The problem is the penalty (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The problem is the penalty (Score:2)
Re:The problem is the penalty (Score:2)
Re:The problem is the penalty (Score:2)
When awareness is raised, and people support the 'right' thing, and shun the 'ronngg', then we can spend more time enjoying life, and less time feeding the sharks.
Re:The problem is the penalty (Score:5, Informative)
The original MPlayer devellopers wanted to dual license MPlayer because they felt exactly the way you do after the MPlayer vs Kiss debacle. When it was discovered that Kiss had stolen GPL'ed code from MPlayer, they first flat out denied it, they even went as far as to imply that MPlayer had somehow stolen code from a KISS DVD-player. But in the end Kiss where forced to comply [kiss-technology.com] with the GPL and offer source downloads.
Re:The problem is the penalty (Score:5, Informative)
Its simple. Once violated, your rights to continue to use the GPL are revoked. This means every copy you allow to be downloaded, sold, or given away is now a US Copyright Violation, subject to $20k to $200k in penalties per-copy. Its easier to enforce if they filed their copyright with the US Copyright office (we did to fight just the same thing).
Most GPL violations settle out of court because the costs associated with going to court are enormous. Its hard to assess "damages" against a GPL project where the code is given away, copied, shared, downloaded, etc. for free.
In some cases, if the project taken by a commercial entity is used to "compete" with the free version (i.e. they claim they wrote it), it is also a "Lanhan Act" violation, or "False designation of origin".
It gets really ugly when the GPL is violated, but the good thing is that once violated, the GPL is no longer even an issue, its a clear-cut US Copyright violation.
Re:The problem is the penalty (Score:2)
Most GPL violations settle out of court because the costs associated with going to court are enormous. Its hard to assess "damages" against a GPL project where the code is given away, copied, shared, downloaded, etc. for free.
I agree with your post (and I'm still not trolling, honest) but I have to point out that you've answered the "what" very completely... but not the "who". If someone is in violation, you've outlined the laws involved and the penalties to face. Only thing missing is someone to brin
Brain, meet logic (Score:3, Insightful)
And for non-US people this would mean...? ...that it is a violation of non-US copyright law (in probably every country on the planet outside of perhaps Iran, North Korea, and Utah). If the license is revoked, the local copyright statutes take effect. In virtually every country on the planet, that means you lose the right to copy or distri
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: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 a
eMule, eMule+, MetaCafe and the GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
http://forum.emule-project.net/index.php?showtopi
http://forums.metacafe.com/viewtopic.php?t=139 [metacafe.com]
The worst part is probably that the eMule+ folks, who forked the eMule codebase and should be well aware of how the GPL works, are directly contributing to this violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like they're dead? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.cherryos.com/ [cherryos.com]
Now they are saying:
and they are linking to:
http://emaculation.com/ [emaculation.com]
What they hell are these guys doing now?!?!?
Join in the supposed slander and libel (Score:5, Funny)
To MXS
To me your company (MXS) is nothing but a bunch of liers and plagerists
If i am wrong and your honest(which i doubt) then i apoligise but from what ive seen today just shows more evidence that you should be taken to court for this
Your Sincerly
Fidel-catsro(A.K.A G.T.K)
If they want to take Drunkenbatman to court then i say we all join in and acuse them and see who far they get trying to take us all to court
I havn't had time to fully read overevery last bit of his findings (fairly lengthy read and rather well done) but from what i have seen it looks like they didn't learn the first time.
Re:Join in the supposed slander and libel (Score:2)
Re:Join in the supposed slander and libel (Score:2)
In the immortal words of Bill Lawry... (Score:4, Funny)
Legal Shmotice (Score:4, Funny)
It has come to my attention that you have acknowledged the giant pink elephant in the room. As you neither asked for nor received permission to acknowledge my client's said pink elephant nor to publish any information describing or defining said pink elephant, I believe you have willfully infringed my client's rights under 17 B.S. Section 1 and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $99,(many zeros) as set forth in Section 1234 therein.
I demand that you immediately cease acknowledging the pink elephant and that you deliver to me, if applicable all pictures, descriptions, and big steaming turds you have unlawfully made notice of.
If I have not received an affirmative response from you by 1 second prior to you reading this, indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, I shall take further action against you.
Very truly yours,
Arden & Jim
MXS = Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MXS = Stupid (Score:2)
However, from a marketing point of view it is probably not that clever to go out and say; "Buy our great product for a lot of money. By the way, it is almost identical to this other thing that you can download for absolutely free from another website."
Re:MXS = Stupid (Score:2)
I'm tired of hearing about these "poor companies" who can't market their software legally. If you can't sell it, don't cry to me, move on and write something you *can* sell.
If you can't figure out how to make money selling software, change industries.
Besides, all they have to do is provide download links for the sources they used from their own site to those customers they sell the binaries to.
Th
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.
Re:Commercial software pirates (Score:5, Informative)
This is called a "Lanham Act Violation" (false designation of origin), and can be prosecuted under the law. If some company takes your code and claims they wrote it, you have legal grounds to chew them into dust.
Re:Commercial software pirates (Score:4, Insightful)
so long as you a million or so to fund the case
Here's a weird example I stumbled across... (Score:3)
They offer Photoshop, Office, and Sound editor work-alikes for Windows and Mac.
Give you three guesses what you actually get for you $29.99...
This happens more often than you think... (Score:5, Interesting)
GPL violations are a lot more common than most people think.
Just because it doesn't hit the mainstream media doesn't mean that thousands (yes, thousands of OSS projects out there are being actively violated by commercial enterprises). A few years ago I caught Sony doing this [gnu-designs.com] and reported about it (picked up by Slashdot here [slashdot.org] based on my account).
But that was relatively small potatoes to another GPL violation we've had to deal with. The CEO of a mobile company (who shall remain nameless, thousands know who he is) took our code [plkr.org], stripped our names and attribution out, removed the COPYING file (our copy of the GPL license), put his name all over it, and claimed he wrote it. He also waffled and lied over the years about which parts of our project he was and was not using. His stories changed back and forth (and I have all of the emails confirming these wishy-washy statements).
When we started seeing companies giving away binary versions of an application that looked suspisciously like ours (and I mean pixel-for-pixel identical) without any source, attribution or links back to the GPL, we started calling those companies and requesting the source for compliance. Since these companies had no idea who we were, they referred us back to the company they bought it from.. the original one who took our code from us outside of compliance with the GPL.
Then the threats started coming in... from the CEO of the company that originally took our source. My favorite quote from him:
We were appointed an amazing attorney [harvard.edu] by the FSF, and she represented us well. I even went to NYC to meet with this CEO with Wendy to discuss how they could bring themselves into compliance. The CEO insisted that "..the GPL is not a license, its subject to interpretation... it was never reviewed by real attorneys or tested in court", and then proceeded to tell me to fire my attorney, right in front of her, because he said she wasn't giving me correct information about the law. Yeah ok, except she TEACHES law, and this CEO does what again? Oh yeah, steals other people's products for his own profitous gain.
He continued to threaten us for contacting his "partners" (who were also not transferred the GPL when he sold them "his" product [using our code]). Of course his threats fell on deaf ears, since it is our duty to require compliance with our code no matter who uses it.
The case goes on now, 4+ years later, but some interesting facts have come to light and we may have some official corporate backing from someone he believes is a partner of his... this is FAR from over, and he has absolutely no idea what mountain of legal stress is heading his way.
Wendy has moved on to the EFF now, and we have some new legal contacts at the FSF to try persue this further, but they're busy with lots of other cases.
If anyone is interested in hearing more details, feel free to contact me. If you want to support our case against companies like this, please visit our donation page [plkr.org] and contribute to help us fund more legal support (or just because your appreciate our work: Don't forget to check out our Plucker eye-candy page [plkr.org]).
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 Cli
Re:This happens more often than you think... (Score:2)
Re:This happens more often than you think... (Score:2)
Re:This happens more often than you think... (Score:2)
Re:This happens more often than you think... (Score:2)
Re:This happens more often than you think... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This happens more often than you think... (Score:5, Informative)
Mostly because Wendy moved on to work for the EFF and all attempts to get a replacement pro-bono attorney from the FSF (with as much clue as Wendy) were unsuccessful.
And since we are wholly self-funded, putting up the retainer costs to talk to an attorney for 3-4 hours at his dime is not something we can just do, even if he decides to take the case as a "Slam Dunk" on his own merit.
Also, we're giving the company who is infringing some time to hang themselves while we gather more information. They're now selling "Their Solution(tm)" to a pretty serious mobile vendor who is incorporating it into ROM on their upcoming devices. If this is true, a lot of companies and partners are in a world of hurt.
It'll happen, it just takes time.
Re:This happens more often than you think... (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems to me there is a market for some enterprising attorneys to seek out GPL violators and sue their asses off (on behalf of the violatee of course). I don't mean on a pro-bono basis either. I mean as a business (they would keep a % of the settlement)
Instead of "ambulance chasers", they
Re:This happens more often than you think... (Score:3)
Ironic you should bring that up... about an hour after my post, I received an email from an attorney in Atlanta, GA. who specifically deals with this problem, from a commercial perspective. He wanted to hear the details of my story and some background
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.
Outsourcing aspect (Score:2)
Re:Outsourcing aspect (Score:2)
What a sec... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is it that people get upset at Gnu Public License violations, but think that downloading Music and Movies is OK? Shouldn't they either come down on one side or the other (GPL violations ok, music and movie downloading OK; vs GPL violations bad, music and movie downloading bad), but not both sides as seems so often the case?
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:What a sec... Flawed Assumption (Score:4, Insightful)
How can you support that?
Re:What a sec... (Score:3, Insightful)
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"
It's the Anonymous Astroturfer! (Score:3, Informative)
Uh oh (Score:4, Funny)
Well, that would explain why Robin's been in the shower all day muttering "won't come off... so dirty..."
Even more LGPL violations than GPL (Score:2, Interesting)
This is because people using LGPL falsely assume they don't have obligations if they merely link to the libraries.
LGPL Section 5 Paragraph 3 states that if you use material from the header files, your binaries become subject to LGPL even if your source files do not contain any LGPL code.
This means companies that link to c runtime libraries on Linux should be living up to LGPL requirements such as allowing modifications to the binaries, explicitely a
Re:Even more LGPL violations than GPL (Score:3, Informative)
If that is accurate, then there's no reason to have the LGPL at all as it functions exactly like the GPL. How do you use a library without the headers? Do you have to write your own headers for the library? Without peeking?
Libel/Slander (Score:2)
Re:Libel/Slander (Score:2)
My stuff (Score:3, Interesting)
"Ryan Thoryk (aka EventHorizon), a Unix and Network Specialist in Illinois, is the one who put all of the hard work into peeking around the original VX30 binaries"
Yay - finally my hard work is getting mindshare
-eventhorizon
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.
Great article (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Its not such a big deal (Score:5, Informative)
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
Q: Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?
Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.
You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.
The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version. In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right, but does have the right.
Re:Its not such a big deal (Score:5, Informative)
In short, feel free to do whatever you want with GPL'd code in house, just be sure you're ready to give all those changes back to the community if you decide to sell the product you made with it.
Re:Its not such a big deal (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its not such a big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You ar
Re:Its not such a big deal (Score:2, Insightful)
If you r
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
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:2)
Funny how noone asked SuSE or RealNetworks that, when RealPlayer got included on the same CD as the rest of SuSE's Linux distro.
Also for a long time WinCVS was a closed source front end to CVS, except there was a very clear separation between the closed source GUI and the command-line CVS which was supplied with all sources and copyright notice. Funny how noone flamed those.
"If we start releasing the source to s
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:But this is a problem (Score:2)
Then instead of posting the URL _if_ someone flames you about GPL, you post something like "The sources are in the 'sources' directory on the CD." Problem solved, and it didn't take 10 months.
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.
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 :==
Straw man? (Score:2)
I fail to see _how_ can something like, for example, CherryOS and spewing bullshit and lies for _months_ to avoid GPL count as a honest slight mistake. You mean, what? They really meant to post the sources, but purely accidentally, by honest mistake, they instead lied about it and claimed they hadn't even heard of PearPC?
And that's the whole point: in all cases it took several bullshit resp
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, P
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 c
Re:But this is a problem (Score:2)
Interestingly, this is why I put my source out under the BSD licence, because I know that I quite often need (and use) equivilantly licenced source, two such examples are Henry Spencers' regex lib and the SQLite engine.... do onto others what you expect others to do onto you.
Harming OSS by making your boss respect licences ? (Score:2)
So what you call "harming OSS" is to make Mr. Corporate understand that if he messes with OSS licence he will be in trouble ?
It is pretty amusing to see (often) comments of that kind which basically state that OSS has to be used in closed software to reach another level of success. This is first grade bullshit.
--
Go Debian!
Re:But this is a problem (Score:2)
Re:But this is a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
If instead you make an offer to get the source
Re:But this is a problem (Score:3, Informative)
This simply isn't true. Neither Microsoft nor the BSA has any legal authority to enter anyone's place of business or home in the absence of either a court order or the owner's permission to do so. The necessary permission could be granted at the time, or it could have been granted at an earlier time when a license agreement was signed. When the BSA conducts a raid (and they aren't just being allowed to tag along with real police) the only authority on which they have to rely is a prior valid agreement with
Re:GNU GPL (Score:2)
Re:Linux users are just as guilty (Score:2, Flamebait)
Next, we have your
Re:Same Jim Kartes? (Score:2)
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
Re:"Drunkenblog" isn't much of an authority (Score:5, Informative)
From primary archive,
http://www.tliquest.net/mxs [tliquest.net]
There are 20 supposed mirrors of my site, and I'll find out where they are soon.
---------
Listing of projects that VX30 has taken code from:
XviD 0.9.2 (all VX30 versions use this Xvid version)
Media Player Classic (VX30 live also uses MPC's webserver)
LAME (old 2004 version used version 3.93)
Possibly Filezilla (found a whole bunch of error messages from it)
Nero Freeware Advanced Audio (AAC) Decoder
Liba52
Ogg Vorbis code (it contains libVorbis, but that is under a BSD license; they haven't given credit, so it's a violation)
but - the vorbis streaming code seems to be part of another non-Xiph app
What I still don't know:
-origination of Xvid encoder frontend they used for the original VX30 and later versions
-origination of audio/video streamer server they used
-origination of Java-based decoder client
-which ones of these make up the Live Server app
-which app the threaded Ogg Vorbis code is from
---------
-eventhorizon