3 ms·

The title here is "Hacking Team steals open source code to build Android spy tool", while it seems to me that they didn't "steal" anything. They just used some

by Joky 11y ago

The title here is "Hacking Team steals open source code to build Android spy tool", while it seems to me that they didn't "steal" anything. They just used some open-source software to build their tools. Maybe someone could argue that it is GPL code and there should be redistribution of the code, but this is only towards the client of Hacking Team.

yarrel 11y ago
Yes it's LGPL. As long as their clients could receive the source code if they wanted and re-link the binaries there isn't a problem. Could their clients receive the source code and re-link?
sctb 11y ago
We updated the title, since the submitted article doesn't use the word "steal".
bluejekyll 11y ago
What's funny is that one of Stallman's arguments for GPL over BSD style licenses, i.e. Free vs. Open licenses, is specifically about the code being used for nefarious purposes, like DRM. In this case it's used to create something even more sinister, but by all accounts they are following the licensing by keeping the source open. So it says more to me about picking a license that you are comfortable with, and understanding that based on that choice it's going to possibly be used in the worst way that you could imagine. They were correct to leave his name as copyright holder, as doing anything different would mean that they stole his copyright, which they did not.
- bcg1 11y ago
  There is not evidence that they complied the license. They were hacked and this source code was exposed. I suspect that they were not properly distributing links to the source for the LGPL library they used (especially since it seems like this is Android spyware). BTW even if they cited the author as the copyright holder... that does not necessarily mean that they were complying with the license, which could definitely be copyright infringement
- plonh 11y ago
  As linked elsewhere in this thread,RMS explicitly endorses using GPL software for nefarious purposes outside of restricting software freedom. GPL solves one specific problem. It isn't Superman.
dublinben 11y ago
Their use was a violation of the license (GPL v2) of the software at issue. If commercial copyright infringement can be called "theft" then Hacking Team certainly "stole" his code. End users of software, not just the paying clients/spooks, have rights under the original license of his app.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  Based on what? Do you know of a single end user client that's complaining that they don't have the source code to the tools? More than likely they do. Or are you saying that the license applies to the 'end user', the person unknowingly and/or unwillingly being monitored by the injection of this software onto their devices? Is that really a road you want to go down - that people with no knowledge or consent are still parties to a license? The whole "click through" EULA thing is bad enough. Now I can come along, commit a felony to install something on your computer without your knowledge and you're still a party to the license of the software I installed.

by Joky 11y ago

yarrel 11y ago

Yes it's LGPL. As long as their clients could receive the source code if they wanted and re-link the binaries there isn't a problem. Could their clients receive the source code and re-link?

sctb 11y ago

We updated the title, since the submitted article doesn't use the word "steal".

bluejekyll 11y ago

What's funny is that one of Stallman's arguments for GPL over BSD style licenses, i.e. Free vs. Open licenses, is specifically about the code being used for nefarious purposes, like DRM. In this case it's used to create something even more sinister, but by all accounts they are following the licensing by keeping the source open. So it says more to me about picking a license that you are comfortable with, and understanding that based on that choice it's going to possibly be used in the worst way that you could imagine. They were correct to leave his name as copyright holder, as doing anything different would mean that they stole his copyright, which they did not.

bcg1 11y ago
There is not evidence that they complied the license. They were hacked and this source code was exposed. I suspect that they were not properly distributing links to the source for the LGPL library they used (especially since it seems like this is Android spyware). BTW even if they cited the author as the copyright holder... that does not necessarily mean that they were complying with the license, which could definitely be copyright infringement
plonh 11y ago
As linked elsewhere in this thread,RMS explicitly endorses using GPL software for nefarious purposes outside of restricting software freedom. GPL solves one specific problem. It isn't Superman.

dublinben 11y ago

Their use was a violation of the license (GPL v2) of the software at issue. If commercial copyright infringement can be called "theft" then Hacking Team certainly "stole" his code. End users of software, not just the paying clients/spooks, have rights under the original license of his app.

FireBeyond 11y ago
Based on what? Do you know of a single end user client that's complaining that they don't have the source code to the tools? More than likely they do. Or are you saying that the license applies to the 'end user', the person unknowingly and/or unwillingly being monitored by the injection of this software onto their devices? Is that really a road you want to go down - that people with no knowledge or consent are still parties to a license? The whole "click through" EULA thing is bad enough. Now I can come along, commit a felony to install something on your computer without your knowledge and you're still a party to the license of the software I installed.