Hello,
Some weeks ago I downloaded a program package that was based on GPL covered code. I couldn't find any hint in the package about where to get the sources.
So I wrote to the webmaster of the site to ask for the sources and to say him, that it is not okay like that. I tried to check out the facts as good as I could and there were more problems concerning the GPL. So it became a very long letter - followed by a long discussion. :-(
I tried to be polite, but it turned out, that the person I wrote to didn't know anything about the concept of Free Software - and so he obviously understood some things wrong.
Well, he pointed me to the website of the project, where they got it from, but there is just a newer version, not the version they put in their package. So till now I haven't been able to get the sources yet.
BTW. It turned out, that I didn't really need the sources for what I wanted to do, and that the things they made also work with the new version, but that doesn't make it okay I think.
I also contacted the authors of former works. One couldn't be reached at all and the other doesn't care too much.
So, what shall I do now?
Well, he pointed me to the website of the project, where they got it from, but there is just a newer version, not the version they put in their package. So till now I haven't been able to get the sources yet.
Don't they store older copies? Was the repackaged version modified in anyway? If it wasn't then giving a link to where they originally downloaded the copy is perfectly OK I think.
I also contacted the authors of former works. One couldn't be reached at all and the other doesn't care too much.
So, what shall I do now?
As I see it, there isn't much you can do since you are not the copyright holder.
Cheers.
A Qui, 2004-01-08 às 20:34, Alfred M. Szmidt escreveu:
Well, he pointed me to the website of the project, where they got it from, but there is just a newer version, not the version they put in their package. So till now I haven't been able to get the sources yet.
Don't they store older copies? Was the repackaged version modified in anyway? If it wasn't then giving a link to where they originally downloaded the copy is perfectly OK I think.
Just the link isn't ok. If this is non-commercial distribution it can only be done if the Andreas received an offer for accessing the source code. If that isn't the case, this is a GPL violation.
I also contacted the authors of former works. One couldn't be reached at all and the other doesn't care too much.
So, what shall I do now?
As I see it, there isn't much you can do since you are not the copyright holder.
This is the problem. If the copyright holders don't care about a license violation, there's nothing you can do. I advise you to get used to get the source code with the binary every time it's possible.
Just the link isn't ok. If this is non-commercial distribution it can only be done if the Andreas received an offer for accessing the source code. If that isn't the case, this is a GPL violation.
Well, not an offer directly, but just information on how to access it; at least for non-commercial distribution (section 3 (c)). I read it as "giving the link" == "the information"; but forgot that it should be accompanied with the actual distribution.
Anyway, the original poster didn't give enough information, so all we can do is guess.
Cheerio.
Sorry, that I haven't answered for so long, but I was cut off of this list for a while and couldn't follow this discussion.
On Friday, 09. Jan 2004 Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Just the link isn't ok. If this is non-commercial distribution it can only be done if the Andreas received an offer for accessing the source code. If that isn't the case, this is a GPL violation.
Well, not an offer directly, but just information on how to access it; at least for non-commercial distribution (section 3 (c)). I read it as "giving the link" == "the information"; but forgot that it should be accompanied with the actual distribution.
Anyway, the original poster didn't give enough information, so all we can do is guess.
Well, there was the GPL and no other information. And I know, that it's based on a GPL-covered program.
Next to the GPL there was also a note, that it shouldn't be sold for profit - and also that doesn't fit together.
But I don't want to send their address here in publicity.
Perhaps someone from the FSFE could have an eye on the case and talk to them again. So please contact me in a private mail. It should be someone, who speaks English and German and who is able to run Windows programs.
Perhaps someone from the FSFE could have an eye on the case and talk to them again.
Only the copyright holders can do anything leagally. And since you noted that the copyright holders didn't care, you're out of luck. If they copyright holders just don't care, then anyone can do essentially what they want.
This is why it is so nice to be able to assign the copyright over to a central source that cares about license violations, and will kick some ass. :-)
Cheers.
Em Sexta 26 Setembro 2003 10:44, Andreas K. Foerster escreveu:
So, what shall I do now?
use your energy to write your own code. It's far less trouble than the needed to have some help from laws created to protect proprietary software.
[]s, gandhi
use your energy to write your own code. It's far less trouble than the needed to have some help from laws created to protect proprietary software.
Oh please, copyright law doesn't protect non-free software more then it protects free software, just take a look at the GNU General Public License. Non-free software comes from the mentallity of a few people that consider it their "goal" to deprive people of their rights. It doesn't come from any law; infact the law helps us with keeping our software free. It is a wonderfull double edged sword.
Em Quinta 08 Janeiro 2004 17:29, Alfred M. Szmidt escreveu:
use your energy to write your own code. It's far less trouble than the needed to have some help from laws created to protect proprietary software.
Oh please, copyright law doesn't protect non-free software more then it protects free software, just take a look at the GNU General Public License. Non-free software comes from the mentallity of a few people that consider it their "goal" to deprive people of their rights. It doesn't come from any law; infact the law helps us with keeping our software free. It is a wonderfull double edged sword.
IMHO, it's like playing soccer at the oponents field, with his ball, his judge and his rules. You can think you can win, but at the end, he can always change the rules. We should be thinking about creating a new game... ;-)
Oh please, copyright law doesn't protect non-free software more then it protects free software, just take a look at the GNU General Public License. Non-free software comes from the mentallity of a few people that consider it their "goal" to deprive people of their rights. It doesn't come from any law; infact the law helps us with keeping our software free. It is a wonderfull double edged sword.
IMHO, it's like playing soccer at the oponents field, with his ball, his judge and his rules. You can think you can win, but at the end, he can always change the rules.
Strangly, we are winning, people are aware of Free Software, people do use Free Software. And we tend to live in democratic societies where we can actually change the laws.
Cheers.
Em Quinta 08 Janeiro 2004 17:47, você escreveu:
Strangly, we are winning, people are aware of Free Software, people do use Free Software. And we tend to live in democratic societies where we can actually change the laws.
Cheers.
well, this is getting a little off-topic, but I think is a good discussion... humm... my point is that free software is what is today because all the people that worked and believed on it, and has nothing to do with laws and governments. Can you give the most effective example of a situation where law was really important to free software? You can use gpl, if you want. Do you think it is really only a license? Don't you think it works better as a manifesto, or a icon? See, this is an ethic discussion, and ethics is not necessarily related to law. Do you think that if GPL is considered ilegal, free software will stop? ;-) Anyway, you should understand that free-software exists with or WITHOUT laws. We can make laws to make our jobs easier, but I don't mind to wait a little more for something I know is inevitable, the knowledge sharing.
People do what they have to do.
[]s, gandhi
humm... my point is that free software is what is today because all the people that worked and believed on it, and has nothing to do with laws and governments.
Do you really belive that? I mean, without laws, we couldn't keep software free, or pin down those that violate the license.
Can you give the most effective example of a situation where law was really important to free software?
Yes, a very obvious one, copyright law. It helps keeping software free if you use for example the GPL.
You can use gpl, if you want. Do you think it is really only a license? Don't you think it works better as a manifesto, or a icon? See, this is an ethic discussion, and ethics is not necessarily related to law.
No, this is not an ethics discussion, ethics can be broken in a whim without any major problems. Breaking laws is a bit harder. The same applies to manifestos.
Do you think that if GPL is considered ilegal, free software will stop? ;-)
To some extent yes, since the GPL keeps free software free. People can take for example BSD licensed software and make it non-free.
Anyway, you should understand that free-software exists with or WITHOUT laws.
This is wrong, since it is possible to make free-software completly illegal. Just think of laws like the DMCA, patents, etc.
Cheers.
I disagree completely with you. Copyright is better than the alternative: contract law. And if you destroy copyright that is what you get unless you create something else. If you have any suggestions for that I'd like to hear about it, other than that I prefer copyright to the alternative.
A Qui, 2004-01-08 às 21:33, Ricardo Andere de Mello escreveu:
Em Quinta 08 Janeiro 2004 17:29, Alfred M. Szmidt escreveu:
use your energy to write your own code. It's far less trouble than the needed to have some help from laws created to protect proprietary software.
Oh please, copyright law doesn't protect non-free software more then it protects free software, just take a look at the GNU General Public License. Non-free software comes from the mentallity of a few people that consider it their "goal" to deprive people of their rights. It doesn't come from any law; infact the law helps us with keeping our software free. It is a wonderfull double edged sword.
IMHO, it's like playing soccer at the oponents field, with his ball, his judge and his rules. You can think you can win, but at the end, he can always change the rules. We should be thinking about creating a new game... ;-)
Em Quinta 08 Janeiro 2004 17:52, João Miguel Neves escreveu:
I disagree completely with you. Copyright is better than the alternative: contract law. And if you destroy copyright that is what you get unless you create something else. If you have any suggestions for that I'd like to hear about it, other than that I prefer copyright to the alternative.
Hum... what about cyberlaw? ;-) just joking. 8-P See, even stallman said once that he does not believe in copyright, but used it because it's a way to use their tricks against themselves. I use a lot a phrase from hobbes as an example of how things are wrong, "auctoritas non veritas facit legem". This is something that is changing at the jurisprudency, judges are more sensitive to social aspects of their decisions (at least here in Brazil). The Law will eventually follow the society, not the inverse. See, we should be worried about explaining people why knowledge should be free. Laws will not solve anything.
[]s, gandhi
See, even stallman said once that he does not believe in copyright, but used it because it's a way to use their tricks against themselves.
Shake, rms does belive in copyright. There is very important difference between not liking copyright law, and not beliving in it. If you don't belive in something, then there is no reason why you should break that specific law. Which would mean that people should be allowed to for example break the GPL; and I really doubt that anyone would want that.
Laws will not solve anything.
Laws solve alot. They can help keeping information flowing, they can make goverments use and develop free software so that the tax payers can use it.
If you mean law in general, then you are completly wrong. Without laws I would be able to go and buy a gun and run down the street and kill anyone that doesn't follow my orders, and anyone could do the same.
Cheers
Em Quinta 08 Janeiro 2004 18:57, você escreveu:
If you mean law in general, then you are completly wrong. Without laws I would be able to go and buy a gun and run down the street and kill anyone that doesn't follow my orders, and anyone could do the same.
Millions of people around the world downloads mp3 songs with musics from famous artists and movies from the internet. this is ilegal (without paying copyrights), but they still do it. Certain things (like free software, internet, knowledge and art sharing) are part of a movement that no laws will stop. So laws will naturally change. I'm not telling that laws don't work, I'm just saying that they become after the society, not before.
[]s, gandhi
Millions of people around the world downloads mp3 songs with musics from famous artists and movies from the internet. this is ilegal (without paying copyrights), but they still do it.
Since when is this illegal? In Sweden atleast, it is quite legal to download songs and the like. And I belive that this is the case in most countries.
Certain things (like free software, internet, knowledge and art sharing) are part of a movement that no laws will stop.
I don't belive that for a second, take patents for example. You can't implement an MP3 player that is Free Software without violating a patent, making it essentially illegal.
Em Quinta 08 Janeiro 2004 19:28, você escreveu:
I don't belive that for a second, take patents for example. You can't implement an MP3 player that is Free Software without violating a patent, making it essentially illegal.
oh man... theory is a nice thing... but remember that hollywood studios could not avoid decss being spread all over the world. And if you are capable of playing DVD on your GNU/Linux box, you should thank little Jon. We know he did something wrong (not actually from his country law, only americam law), but I think he did a VERY GOOD thing, because he enabled thousands of people to watch movies on their computers. These rules works on court, but the internet has another rules. Is it hard to understand this? If it is legal, it will be free software, if not, they will call it piracy, but it will still exist. You can sue one guy, but can you sue the entire world? What is the point of being illegal? In another example, reverse engineering was a normal learning process for hackers, now everybody keeps doing the same thing, but just don't tells that does. I don't know one hacker that at some point of his life does not reverse engineered some proprietary software, just to see how it works, or to have more balls at his pinball game. The "underground" will always exist, and the internet will guarantee it's existence. For each software protection created, 10 minutes later a new crack is created. I'm NOT discussing if piracy is write or wrong. I'm just saying that it exists for one reason: "People want access to information!". Here in Brazil, a music CD is about 12 dollars. This is VERY expensive for our country. There are pirate CDs being sold for 1.5 dollars, a lot more affordable for poor people. Who have money buy the original, who don't, buy the piracy. If capitalism cannot solve digital exclusion, maybe piracy (and free software) can.
[]s, gandhi
I don't belive that for a second, take patents for example. You can't implement an MP3 player that is Free Software without violating a patent, making it essentially illegal.
oh man... theory is a nice thing...
Where is the theory? Why do you think Ogg Vorbis was started? It was started for the sole reason to replace non-free, patented audio formats. If using MP3 was so OK, why don't those that care about their freedom use it?
but remember that hollywood studios could not avoid decss being spread all over the world. And if you are capable of playing DVD on your GNU/Linux box, you should thank little Jon. We know he did something wrong (not actually from his country law, only americam law), but I think he did a VERY GOOD thing, because he enabled thousands of people to watch movies on their computers.
I suggest that you read the court decision[0], Jon Johansen didn't break DeCSS. The only thing he did was combine some code to create an GUI, for Windows. I don't see how he had any impact on Free Software; specially since Jon Johansen doesn't care about Free Software. He released the source code by _mistake_, and requested that anyone who had downloaded the it should delete their copy. And he actually broken the GPL[1] (sadly I can't find the livid-dev archives, but I think that will do). So no, Jon Johansen isn't a hero, nor did he do anything good.
I might note that Jon Johansen was acquitted, so the law works to some extent.
These rules works on court, but the internet has another rules. Is it hard to understand this? If it is legal, it will be free software, if not, they will call it piracy, but it will still exist.
Sadly, this paragraph doesn't make much sense to me. If what is legal? Unauthorised copying (which you erroneously call piracy, copying has absolutely nothing about roaming the high seas and jumping onto boats) is something one can do with Free Software as well...
You can sue one guy, but can you sue the entire world? What is the point of being illegal?
That is a horrible example, take the following extreme: "You can put away one person for murder, but can you put away the entire world?" If you can't, what's the point of not going on a killing spree?
In another example, reverse engineering was a normal learning process for hackers, now everybody keeps doing the same thing, but just don't tells that does. I don't know one hacker that at some point of his life does not reverse engineered some proprietary software, just to see how it works, or to have more balls at his pinball game.
I have never reverse-engineered non-free software. In fact, I refuse to touch non-free software. I have projects like the GNU project that actually make it OK to see how it all works and tweak it to my hearts content. And I can list quite a few people that haven't reversed engineered non-free software which are quite notable hackers. One such person is Richard M. Stallman; who hasn't touched non-free software at all...
As for reverse-engineering being a "normal learning process", that is quite hard to belive. To do reverse engineering takes a lot of skill and knowledge, and if you already know that much, your time could be spent on something far more useful then "getting more balls in a pinball game".
The "underground" will always exist, and the internet will guarantee it's existence. For each software protection created, 10 minutes later a new crack is created. I'm NOT discussing if piracy is write or wrong. I'm just saying that it exists for one reason: "People want access to information!".
No, unauthorised copying does not exist for that reason, nobody copies <your-favourite-non-free-program> to reverse engineer it. Or to learn about it. That is what information is, learning. And the only time you can really learn about software is by reading and modifying the actual source code, which you can't do with non-free software. In fact, you can do unauthorised copying of Free Software! So saying that unauthorised copying is done for the sole purpose of "accessing information" is complete and utter bullshit.
Here in Brazil, a music CD is about 12 dollars. This is VERY expensive for our country. There are pirate CDs being sold for 1.5 dollars, a lot more affordable for poor people. Who have money buy the original, who don't, buy the piracy. If capitalism cannot solve digital exclusion, maybe piracy (and free software) can.
If you consider unauthorised copying of software OK, then you also consider that companies are allowed to break the GPL. Since this is the exact same thing as unauthorised copying. If you don't respect the law, why should they?
Don't like the pricing? Don't by the CD! It is quite that simple, nobody is forcing you to buy it, and I am quite sure that there exist second hand stores that sell CD's cheaper. And if you feel strongly about it, do something, protest, make people aware. One person can do quite a lot, just take a look at the GNU project.
[0]: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DeCSS_prosecutions/Johansen_DeCSS_case/20030109_... [1]: http://www.chscene.ch/ccc/decss/decsstruth.txt
Cheers.
Em Sexta 09 Janeiro 2004 01:11, você escreveu:
Don't like the pricing? Don't by the CD! It is quite that simple, nobody is forcing you to buy it, and I am quite sure that there exist second hand stores that sell CD's cheaper. And if you feel strongly about it, do something, protest, make people aware. One person can do quite a lot, just take a look at the GNU project.
man... you probably lives in a nice country... even second hand stores sell it expensive (8 dollars). The fact is NOBODY helps the poor people, even the (brazilian) government. I pay about 35% of taxes, and I have NOTHING back. I still don't have health care, free education, or any type of unemployed insurance. At my home, I can only afford private health care for my little daughter, and belive me, I'm a lucky guy. 90% of population have to wait days at public hospitals. last month there was a job offer for five street cleaners (a very cheap job), and 5.000 thousand people appeared to try it.
My point is: different worlds, different decisions. Piracy has a place in my third world country. People barely knows how to read here, any chance to access information is welcome, maybe they can get a chance to get out this shit. That's why free-software is getting VERY STRONG here in BRAZIL, more for financial reasons than ethical. We are using it now at the government and trying to get it at schools. It's our chance to improve our technology, our education and stop digital exclusion.
It's quite easy to not have dirty foot if you are using shoes...
Anyway, if all countries were rich, capitalism just would not exist, to one win, another has to loose, there's no magic.
hum... I think this thread is getting a little long and we can finish here 8-P. I think you understood that I have a different point of view because I have different life. I understood that you have the oportunity to be just like I would be if I could. ;-)
[]s, gandhi
last month there was a job offer for five street cleaners (a very cheap job), and 5.000 thousand people appeared to try it.
And why do I have such a hard time to belive in that? Care to cite some source instead of pulling it out of the air? The same goes for the "90% of the population has to wait for health care", "35% taxes with nothing back", etc. Atleast, then it will be something one can belive.
My point is: different worlds, different decisions. Piracy has a place in my third world country. People barely knows how to read here, any chance to access information is welcome, maybe they can get a chance to get out this shit. That's why free-software is getting VERY STRONG here in BRAZIL, more for financial reasons than ethical.
It would be nice if you could stop twisting and turning like a worm. First you say that unauthorized copying is only done to gain information, and now you blame it on the price. And it still seems that you can't understand that unauthorised copying can be done for free software!
As for ripping out the whole message, won't even bother commenting on that...
This is my first post on this list, so I'm sorry if i fumble in some way...
Em Sexta 09 Janeiro 2004 01:11, você escreveu:
Don't like the pricing? Don't by the CD! It is quite that simple, nobody is forcing you to buy it, and I am quite sure that there >>exist second hand stores that sell CD's cheaper. And if you feel >>strongly about it, do something, protest, make people aware. One >>person can do quite a lot, just take a look at the GNU project.
man... you probably lives in a nice country... even second hand >stores
sell it
expensive (8 dollars). The fact is NOBODY helps the poor people, >even the (brazilian) government.
I live in Serbia, former Yugoslavia state, and the things are pretty much the same here. The government has officialy succesfully (more or less) erradicated piracy from this society here, but they gave no alternative, except the one nobody can afford - in both music and software markets... Even people with decent salaries cannot really afford to buy a music CD (20 Euro and more - equivalent sum in our currency is about 1.300 dinars and that's, believe me, a good price for a CD, they usually come two or three times more expensive). And with software it's even bigger figures, so basically no one does it. No one is buying legal software (I am talking about common people, not companies) when they can get pirated for much less money. This is not necessarily god nor bad. The thing is, if you want to learn, no one should be able to stop you from doing so, but it's not right to steal things from other people, right? And piracy is stealing. So what it comes to is that the goverment has not erradicated piracy, but made it go more underground, and therefore made the whole legalization issue in our country a sharade. Same book, different covers. Ok, now I figure I'm way off topic, it's just that it angers me to hear people taking things so lightly as to say "don't like the price? don't buy it!". Maybe in developed societies... but not where I live... attitude like that brings forth a future of generations of uneducated people, becaouse they couldn't afford it... and both music and computers are a part of our education.
My point is: different worlds, different decisions. Piracy has a >place in
my
third world country. People barely knows how to read here, any >chance to access information is welcome, maybe they can get a chance to >get out this
shit. That's why free-software is getting VERY STRONG here in >BRAZIL, more
for financial reasons than ethical. We are using it now at the >government
and
trying to get it at schools. It's our chance to improve our >technology,
our
education and stop digital exclusion.
Exactly. But in my country it's not even like that. Our govement is siding with M$oft and free software is almost never mentioned. We are being, in a way, led to believe that even education is another word for money.
[Please refrain from sending HTML messages, it is annoying and it just bloats the message with twice the content]
Ok, now I figure I'm way off topic, it's just that it angers me to hear people taking things so lightly as to say "don't like the price? don't buy it!". Maybe in developed societies... but not where I live... attitude like that brings forth a future of generations of uneducated people, becaouse they couldn't afford it... and both music and computers are a part of our education.
And it angers and sadness me to see people to give up their freedoms so lightly. You have always the choice of developing your own version of some non-free program, and you have the choice to start a band. Using non-free software is never justifiable; be it its price or whatever. Would you also break the license of the GPL for example? Because there is no difference between unauthorized copying of non-free software and free software. It is still a breach of the license.
The whole argument that non-free software costs to much is totally bogus, because free software can cost as much, or even more. Just because it is Free Software does not imply that it is gratis software. The argument about "educating" people, is also bogus since non-free software doesn't help in that regard--you can't study the code, or muck around with it.
Happy hacking.
Em Segunda 12 Janeiro 2004 22:44, Alfred M. Szmidt escreveu:
And it angers and sadness me to see people to give up their freedoms so lightly. You have always the choice of developing your own version of some non-free program, and you have the choice to start a band. Using non-free software is never justifiable; be it its price or whatever. Would you also break the license of the GPL for example? Because there is no difference between unauthorized copying of non-free software and free software. It is still a breach of the license.
Who cares to the license? I'll do what I think is "right". If GPL stops me from doing what I believe, that is to free knowledge, I'll certainly break it. My compromise is with what I believe, not with a piece of paper.
The whole argument that non-free software costs to much is totally bogus, because free software can cost as much, or even more. Just because it is Free Software does not imply that it is gratis software. The argument about "educating" people, is also bogus since non-free software doesn't help in that regard--you can't study the code, or muck around with it.
I think you don't get the point. The whole discussion is that "free" and "non-free" should be more acessible to the people.
[]s, gandhi
Am Dienstag, dem 13. Jan 2004 schrieb Ricardo Andere de Mello:
Using non-free software is never justifiable; be it its price or whatever. Would you also break the license of the GPL for example? Because there is no difference between unauthorized copying of non-free software and free software. It is still a breach of the license.
Who cares to the license?
We do!
I'll do what I think is "right". If GPL stops me from doing what I believe, that is to free knowledge, I'll certainly break it. My compromise is with what I believe, not with a piece of paper.
I think you don't know what you are talking about.
What is the GPL stopping you from? If you really want to break the GPL then don't talk about freedom or helping other people, because then you do quite the opposite!
The whole argument that non-free software costs to much is totally bogus, because free software can cost as much, or even more. Just because it is Free Software does not imply that it is gratis software.
It is true that Free Software _can_ cost as much, but it usually doesn't. And of course you are always allowed to copy it for free. It is true, that Free Software isn't always gratis software, but it often is.
I think the costs are a good argument, but one for Free Software, not against it.
It's a good argument as well for commercial resellers, because they can charge as much as they want, _and_ it is a good argument for the users, because they don't have to pay it. ;-) This sounds absurd, but it works: Users really buy GNU/Linux distributions - but only one single copy for themselves and their friends.
The argument about "educating" people, is also bogus since non-free software doesn't help in that regard--you can't study the code, or muck around with it.
I think you don't get the point. The whole discussion is that "free" and "non-free" should be more acessible to the people
Free Software is there to make it more accessible in contrast to non-free software. You are talking as if free and non-free were the same, but it isn't.
Hmm, sorry, but I think you first should read, what Free Software is about. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 07:38, Ricardo Andere de Mello wrote:
Who cares to the license? I'll do what I think is "right". If GPL stops me from doing what I believe, that is to free knowledge, I'll certainly break it. My compromise is with what I believe, not with a piece of paper.
The GPL doesn't stop anyone from sharing (freeing) knowledge. Actually, it has provisions ensuring that except if someone doesn't abide the law you will never be stopped from sharing knowledge.
Other than that, I believe it is not good advice to break the law, so use the law in means that are favorable to society.
Copyleft is a way to use copyright to ensure that the knowledge remains free.
Rui
Who cares to the license?
Most of the people on this list do, the licenses help us keep software free. It is what protects us from evil doers that want to make free software into non-free software.
I'll do what I think is "right". If GPL stops me from doing what I believe, that is to free knowledge, I'll certainly break it. My compromise is with what I believe, not with a piece of paper.
So if you consider it right to break other peoples rights, will you do it? Because this is essentially what it boils down to. And what do you feel about GPL violations? Are those OK? The person doing the violation is just doing what he feels "right".
If you don't respect copyright law, then you do not respect Free Software.
The whole argument that non-free software costs to much is totally bogus, because free software can cost as much, or even more. Just because it is Free Software does not imply that it is gratis software. The argument about "educating" people, is also bogus since non-free software doesn't help in that regard--you can't study the code, or muck around with it.
I think you don't get the point. The whole discussion is that "free" and "non-free" should be more acessible to the people.
Actually, I belive it is you who don't get the point. Non-free software can _never_ be accessible to people since it deprives users of their rights; you cannot distribute non-free software for one. Let alone modify it, or distribute your modifications. Which is what Free Software is all about.
Cheers.
Em Terça 13 Janeiro 2004 12:53, você escreveu:
So if you consider it right to break other peoples rights, will you do it? Because this is essentially what it boils down to. And what do you feel about GPL violations? Are those OK? The person doing the violation is just doing what he feels "right".
If is for the good of mankind, why not break a license? See, in any country in the world, individual rights can be broken to benefit the the society.
If you don't respect copyright law, then you do not respect Free Software.
The worse thing is to have a name for something people should do naturally.
If is for the good of mankind, why not break a license? See, in any country in the world, individual rights can be broken to benefit the the society.
Can and should are completly different things, anyone can kill you, but does this mean that they should? Breaking any kind of rights is a slippery slope, if someone considers it a good thing to break the rights of all blue people in the world then they should be allowed by your rethoric, so something like the holocaust was quite valid and nobody should have stoped it. Yes, this is in the extreme, but it shows a point; rights are still rights no matter if they are about life or speech.
If you don't respect copyright law, then you do not respect Free Software.
The worse thing is to have a name for something people should do naturally.
You have a name for free speech to, which is also something people "should" do naturally. Should this also be removed based on the sole reason that it is soemthing people should do naturally?
Cheers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 13 Jan 2004 at 15:53, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
If you don't respect copyright law, then you do not respect Free Software.
Sorry I had to interject at this point. Ricardo makes a very valid point though I think he made it in an overly inflammatory way.
The whole argument that non-free software costs to much is totally bogus, because free software can cost as much, or even >
more. Just because it is Free Software does not imply that it is > gratis software. The argument about "educating" people, is also > bogus since non-free software doesn't help in that regard--you > can't study the code, or muck around with it.
I think you don't get the point. The whole discussion is that "free" and "non-free" should be more acessible to the people.
Actually, I belive it is you who don't get the point. Non-free software can _never_ be accessible to people since it deprives users of their rights; you cannot distribute non-free software for one. Let alone modify it, or distribute your modifications. Which is what Free Software is all about.
Get off your bloody high horse! Free software is a concept quite independent of copyright law - indeed the whole spirit of free software is to deliberately revoke many of the restrictions copyright was invented to enforce. Anyone who truly believes in the ideals of free software must believe that copyright is an outdated evil which we only use because the current legal framework offers us no choice!
To bang on about breaking other people's rights - let's face it, is the rights holder a victim? To illegally copy someone's IP hurts them less than playing loud music next to their dwelling because unlike tangible goods, information loses nothing by being copied - and indeed often gains a lot. The Bible is what it is because it was copied voraciously.
People do and always have done what they think is right due to individual or cultural beliefs. This supersedes any law of man - it's why there's an ever growing consumption of recreational drugs - because people's view of what's right is less and less with time matching what the law says. It's why dictatorships get overthrown - it's the very spirit of the freedom you claim free software espouses.
Yet so quickly members of this list tell Ricardo he's wrong and he's doing some sort of really bad thing. Bollocks! I challenge anyone with a Windows or MacOS installation to not have at least one piece of illegally copied software on their system. Just because most uses of GPLed software don't infringe its owner's rights doesn't mean copyright law is any less of an ass.
Let's face it, copyright law *is* an ass and becomes ever more unenforceable with time. Just like anti-drugs laws. And while ethically I can't recommend anyone to break the law, I do seriously suggest everyone considers how best stupid laws which damage society should be repealed when vested interests work so hard to prevent it.
Ricardo - I'm sure you're the type of fellow who if they had the money, they'd like to see it go to the programmer who made your life easier with their software. However most free software is also free of cost and in return for that the creator of the software is morally entitled to see you behave as they demand. If the software came with a licence where you must pat yourself on the head three times before you're allowed to use it, you should do so - it is morally so much to ask when software costs so much of other people's time to create?
Cheers, Niall
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 01:24, alpha wrote:
And piracy is stealing.
This is a very bad thing to say.
First of all, please avoid using the word piracy, you are not about killing people, assaulting ships, destroying physical goods. You are just making a copy that cost nothing and does not harm anyone.
Same is for stealing. To steal is to subtract a physical good so that someone miss something.
If you get my laptop, that's stealing, as I will not be able to use it anymore, but if you copy the software that's on it, that's not stealing, as I will not missing anything.
Nonetheless making unauthorized copies is illegal, I'm not promoting in any way the usage of unathorized copied software, nor non-free nor free.
Simo.
Sorry Ricardo, but you have a very distorted vuew of the world imvho.
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 03:01, Ricardo Andere de Mello wrote:
oh man... theory is a nice thing...
Law is not theory, it is very practical. A complex society like us cannot live whitout laws.
Said that, I know there are some very bad laws, but it is not breacking them that you make a good job, the right thing to do with bad laws is to change them.
but remember that hollywood studios could not avoid decss being spread all over the world.
Policy cannot stop mafia, or drugs sellers, or murders, so what?
And if you are capable of playing DVD on your GNU/Linux box, you should thank little Jon. We know he did something wrong (not actually from his country law, only americam law), but I think he did a VERY GOOD thing, because he enabled thousands of people to watch movies on their computers.
I'm not sure it is illegal even in the US, as the decss has nothing to do with copying a dvd, you can pick a DVD and copy it encrypted, then take the copy and put it on a dvd player, and it will run perfectly. DeCSS is used only to segmentate the market in 6 areas over the world, and the practice seem also to be illegal and complaints have been made to WTO.
These rules works on court, but the internet has another rules.
Internet has the same rules as physical world, please do net get childish ...
Is it hard to understand this? If it is legal, it will be free software, if not, they will call it piracy, but it will still exist.
Murders exist, so what?
You can sue one guy, but can you sue the entire world? What is the point of being illegal?
Change the law, do not break it.
In another example, reverse engineering was a normal learning process for hackers, now everybody keeps doing the same thing, but just don't tells that does. I don't know one hacker that at some point of his life does not reverse engineered some proprietary software, just to see how it works, or to have more balls at his pinball game.
1: reverse engineering is perfectly legal in most of the world and protected by copyright law. 2: given point 1 I do not understand your point here.
The "underground" will always exist, and the internet will guarantee it's existence.
"The Underground" existed before internet too ...
For each software protection created, 10 minutes later a new crack is created. I'm NOT discussing if piracy is write or wrong. I'm just saying that it exists for one reason: "People want access to information!".
So people should make their politicians change the laws to make it perfectly legal, breaking law put you always on the wrong side.
Here in Brazil, a music CD is about 12 dollars. This is VERY expensive for our country. There are pirate CDs being sold for 1.5 dollars, a lot more affordable for poor people. Who have money buy the original, who don't, buy the piracy. If capitalism cannot solve digital exclusion, maybe piracy (and free software) can.
High prices are not a matter of capitalism, they are a problem of lack of real competitions. CD Producers live in a complete monopoly so they make the price they want, they are not subject to competition (this means they are outside any form of real capitalism), as you cannot seriously tell me that you can have competition beetwen different goods. If I do not like Madonna (just an example), I'll not buy his CD even if it costs half the price of my favourite singer.
Simo.
