[HN Gopher] Pirating GPL Software
___________________________________________________________________
Pirating GPL Software
Author : ddtaylor
Score : 24 points
Date : 2021-09-03 19:03 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (krisives.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (krisives.github.io)
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| But isn't this exactly the same thing Canonical did with Ubuntu?
| Heck, Mozilla did it for Firefox. All the trademark does is stop
| people calling the modified version "Elementary OS" - _not_ stop
| them modifying it.
|
| I was giving the author benefit-of-the-doubt earlier, but this
| follow-up just seems... petty, if not malicious.
|
| > _Their respective communities seem convinced that you can
| pirate GPL software, which I find fascinating._
|
| But nowhere do they say it's _illegal_ to do so. They consider
| the distribution to be _akin to_ illegal piracy, because they
| consider it the Done Thing to pay for the Pro distros.
| jarcane wrote:
| Yes, and it was a shit thing when Ubuntu did it too.
|
| Literally drove the creator of Kubuntu out of the project on
| trumped up bullshit when he wouldn't play along (and also kept
| asking questions about the 120k of donations that went missing
| ...)
| ddtaylor wrote:
| > They consider the distribution to be akin to illegal piracy,
| because they consider it the Done Thing to pay for the Pro
| distros.
|
| Regardless of how someone else pays for software doesn't change
| the rights the GPL affords everyone else.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| And they still can - just not in that subreddit. (I didn't
| expect the free speech debate to appear here.)
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| >Now-a-days Linux distros like elementaryOS and ZorinOS take a
| different approach to policing the distribution. The main tactic
| they use now is to control the flow of information on GitHub and
| social media like Reddit. Both distros have rules on their
| various subreddits (/r/elementaryos and /r/zorinos) that users
| cannot post links and sometimes information on how to build your
| own is removed. If someone builds their own .iso or shares the
| information to do so, they will have their post deleted and be
| banned.
|
| >A post submitted to /r/zorinos was acquired by using DHT
| scraping to find the ZorinOS 16 Pro download. It also verified
| that the SHA256 sum matched the one on the ZorinOS website which
| rules out any potential for malicious activity.The post was
| specifically removed for "software piracy".
|
| ...
|
| >Technically this is not a violation of the GPL because they are
| allowed to police their various forums however they wish. I am
| still free to redistribute the software and they have still
| published their source code changes, but it seems like a strange
| loophole.
|
| I wonder actually...
|
| Section 10 Paragraph 3 of gplv3[0]:
|
| >You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of
| the rights granted or affirmed under this License.
|
| [0]:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| also:
|
| Section 6 subsection d, sentence 3: If the place to copy the
| object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may
| be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)
| that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you
| maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where
| to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server
| hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure
| that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these
| requirements.
| kube-system wrote:
| The "you" in this situation is the licensee, i.e. the user.
| This section means: If I posted my source for a GPL-licensed
| work solely on Reddit and it is removed, _I_ would be
| breaking GPL if I didn 't find another place to host it.
|
| The license doesn't apply to the host or anyone who removed
| my post.
| kube-system wrote:
| > of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.
|
| ..is the key phrase. GPL is only an exception to copyright. It
| gives people the right to be exempt from restrictions that
| copyright law places on them by default.
|
| It doesn't give anyone the right to use trademarks, participate
| in the community, or anything else -- because those things were
| never restricted by copyright law in the first place.
| Grieving wrote:
| This whole fight is bizarre. Elementary people requested that the
| author rename his project to avoid confusion in a way that could
| be interpreted either as friendly or a veiled legal threat. The
| author was immediately combative, and didn't calm down after
| multiple clarifications that they were _not_ looking for a fight,
| legal or otherwise. He responded by doxxing them, and is now
| attempting to "expose" them for this.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| > He responded by doxxing them
|
| Do you mean linking to the publicly filed trademark application
| with redactions?
| Grieving wrote:
| It was unredacted when originally posted. I didn't see that
| the author later changed it. But just because there's a
| public record of some information doesn't mean it's not a
| violation of privacy to disseminate it.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| Wasn't the address to a Elementary, LLC company?
| wmf wrote:
| This post is pretty bad. Trademarks are healthy for open source
| to prevent maliciously modified versions (see Firefox and
| Ubuntu). Also, people won't voluntarily pay for something they
| can get for free, so trademarks are a good and valid way to
| monetize open source to make it sustainable (but it has to be
| done very carefully which some of these examples may not be
| doing).
| ddtaylor wrote:
| > Also, people won't voluntarily pay for something they can get
| for free
|
| The GPL seems to be crafted around this fact:
|
| > With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution
| fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program
| from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who
| has network access. Or several users can join together, split
| the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the
| software. A high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the
| software is free.
|
| Source: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
| wmf wrote:
| RMS is wrong on this one. You can't come anywhere close to
| sustaining development on that model.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| It's possible GPL was the wrong choice of license for all
| that software in that circumstance. How has Linux managed
| to survive, isn't it licensed as GPL?
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Large corporate contributors are spending resources to
| keep Linux kernel running, so there's that.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Don't these ISOs contain software that isn't GPL? So perhaps the
| conclusion of this post is misleading, although it makes some
| interesting observations.
| woah wrote:
| Does this person not know the difference between copyright and
| trademark?
| jrm4 wrote:
| You mean the author or the elementaryOS people? It's always
| interesting to see how the parties' interests gets caught up in
| technical-ish definitions.
| coretx wrote:
| Shooting at boats at sea is not the same as infringement. There
| is however different types of infringement and those are
| different from each other. Addressing these differences and the
| use of quality language instead of ramblings about "piracy" makes
| debates and discussions have way more value.
| corty wrote:
| You can pirate GPL software, but not in the way the article
| describes: If you copy&paste or otherwise link GPL code to your
| commercial project and then sell that under a commercial non-GPL
| license, that is pirating GPL software. E.g. what Nvidia and
| compiler vendors like Tasking selling expensive GCC ports do.
| kube-system wrote:
| Copyrights and trademarks are entirely different things.
| Trademarks have nothing to do with GPL, or the software any of
| these projects are based on.
|
| > That seems strange that elementaryOS developers would try to
| deny others the same rights that were essential in allowing them
| to make and distribute elementaryOS in the first place!
|
| ElementaryOS didn't name their project "Debian".
|
| GPL gives you permission to use _software_ that is copyrighted,
| it does _not_ affect other forms of IP. The GPL absolutely does
| _not_ give you the right to use trademarks or patents -- even if
| they are embedded within those same projects.
|
| See: CentOS/RHEL.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| > ElementaryOS didn't name their project "Debian".
|
| Is the vast majority of the elementaryOS distribution from
| Debian/Ubuntu upstream?
|
| > The GPL absolutely does not give you the right to use
| trademarks or patents
|
| The GPL does give users the right to verbatim copy works as
| they were originally distributed.
| kube-system wrote:
| > The GPL does give users the right to verbatim copy works as
| they were originally distributed.
|
| Yes. This is true...as it pertains to copyright. The GPL does
| not convey any other rights, including trademark, patents,
| the right to sleep on Torvald's couch, or anything else. If
| something is not copyrightable, it cannot be licensed with
| GPL.
|
| Names cannot be copyrighted. They are covered by trademark
| law, which GPL does not address... because it is a
| _copyright_ license.
| ddtaylor wrote:
| https://google.github.io/opencasebook/trademarks/#gnu-
| gpl-v3
|
| They would need to provide this kind of additional text in
| their license, but they did not.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-03 23:03 UTC)