7 ms·

Pirating GPL Software

39 points by ddtaylor 5y ago

phendrenad2 5y ago
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 5y ago
Does this person not know the difference between copyright and trademark?
- jrm4 5y ago
  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.
wizzwizz4 5y ago
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.
- ddtaylor 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    And they still can – just not in that subreddit. (I didn't expect the free speech debate to appear here.)
- jarcane 5y ago
  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 ...)
corty 5y ago
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.
coretx 5y ago
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.
wmf 5y ago
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 5y ago
  > 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 https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
  - wmf 5y ago
    RMS is wrong on this one. You can't come anywhere close to sustaining development on that model.
    - ddtaylor 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        Large corporate contributors are spending resources to keep Linux kernel running, so there's that.
        freemint 5y ago
kube-system 5y ago
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 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    > 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 5y ago
      https://google.github.io/opencasebook/trademarks/#gnu-gpl-v3 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.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
MrStonedOne 5y ago
>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 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
- MrStonedOne 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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.
Grieving 5y ago
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 5y ago
  > He responded by doxxing them Do you mean linking to the publicly filed trademark application with redactions?
  - Grieving 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      Wasn't the address to a Elementary, LLC company?
oolonthegreat 5y ago
it's a clear cut case really, the elementary dev issues an ultimatum to the repo owner, the repo owner points out that they do not have any legal basis to issue such an ultimatum. if elementary os people do not have a registered trademark to enforce this, then they shoud have "recommended" the repo owner to change the name, not giving an order and linking their company brand webpage.
- kube-system 5y ago
  It is legally possible to enforce trademarks that are not registered. Registration helps your case but it is not required.
sumanthvepa 5y ago
A trend I've seen with some companies is that they mark their software as GPL but make it really hard to either find there source code (you have contact them for it) or make the build files for the source code non-GPL so you cannot build it. That effectively makes it impossible to redistribute their software under GPL.
- 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
  Erpnext.com is GPL 3.0 but you are "expected to not fork the software because we have built it in a way that any change in a fork would need to be changed multiple times reducing its effect. The upside is, you use the software but pay us support money. You are free to check the source code but please please do not fork as our livelihood depends on brand erpnext and the support. A fork hurts that so please don't. "
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    You're allowed to use the code for whatever else you like, though. For instance, if you want to grab some of their HTTP-handling code, or maybe the markup parser, or perhaps look at how they got modeless key combinations to work in the browser… you can just copy-and-paste into any GPLv3 or AGPLv3 codebase, add a comment for attribution and you're done. GPL is good for more than just forking.
- ddtaylor 5y ago
  The GPL actually requires that build files are also included: > The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.

39 points by ddtaylor 5y ago

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 5y ago

Does this person not know the difference between copyright and trademark?

jrm4 5y ago
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.

wizzwizz4 5y ago

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.

ddtaylor 5y ago
> 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 5y ago
  And they still can – just not in that subreddit. (I didn't expect the free speech debate to appear here.)
jarcane 5y ago
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 ...)

corty 5y ago

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.

coretx 5y ago

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.

wmf 5y ago

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 5y ago
> 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 https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
- wmf 5y ago
  RMS is wrong on this one. You can't come anywhere close to sustaining development on that model.
  - ddtaylor 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      Large corporate contributors are spending resources to keep Linux kernel running, so there's that.
      - freemint 5y ago

kube-system 5y ago

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 5y ago
> 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 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    https://google.github.io/opencasebook/trademarks/#gnu-gpl-v3 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.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

MrStonedOne 5y ago

>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 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

MrStonedOne 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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.

Grieving 5y ago

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 5y ago
> He responded by doxxing them Do you mean linking to the publicly filed trademark application with redactions?
- Grieving 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    Wasn't the address to a Elementary, LLC company?

oolonthegreat 5y ago

it's a clear cut case really, the elementary dev issues an ultimatum to the repo owner, the repo owner points out that they do not have any legal basis to issue such an ultimatum. if elementary os people do not have a registered trademark to enforce this, then they shoud have "recommended" the repo owner to change the name, not giving an order and linking their company brand webpage.

kube-system 5y ago
It is legally possible to enforce trademarks that are not registered. Registration helps your case but it is not required.

sumanthvepa 5y ago

A trend I've seen with some companies is that they mark their software as GPL but make it really hard to either find there source code (you have contact them for it) or make the build files for the source code non-GPL so you cannot build it. That effectively makes it impossible to redistribute their software under GPL.

2Gkashmiri 5y ago
Erpnext.com is GPL 3.0 but you are "expected to not fork the software because we have built it in a way that any change in a fork would need to be changed multiple times reducing its effect. The upside is, you use the software but pay us support money. You are free to check the source code but please please do not fork as our livelihood depends on brand erpnext and the support. A fork hurts that so please don't. "
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  You're allowed to use the code for whatever else you like, though. For instance, if you want to grab some of their HTTP-handling code, or maybe the markup parser, or perhaps look at how they got modeless key combinations to work in the browser… you can just copy-and-paste into any GPLv3 or AGPLv3 codebase, add a comment for attribution and you're done. GPL is good for more than just forking.
ddtaylor 5y ago
The GPL actually requires that build files are also included: > The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.