Active Topics
-
Porting apps to Leste (29)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Arno_11 - 3 days, 1 hr ago -
Install Fonts in N900 (68)
to Maemo 5 / Fremantle by teroyk - 4 days, 4 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2011-01-26
, 22:28
|
|
Posts: 255 |
Thanked: 160 times |
Joined on Oct 2010
@ Finland
|
#302
|
Originally Posted by woody14619
True. There is still one difference between stealing and pirating stuff: when you steal an object the original owner doesn't have it anymore and thus he has lost something physical and has a real quantifiable monetary loss.
By pirating software, you are taking away something that the owner legally has: The right to sell his craft.
But when you pirate something the original owner does not lose anything physical nor does the act incur any monetary loss directly. Even then, the only monetary loss the owner could be perceived to have suffered would be if you would buy that product otherwise if you couldn't pirate it. But if you wouldn't buy it anyway then there has been no monetary loss at all.
It's that latter part that for example MAFIAA always carefully avoids mentioning anywhere, instead claiming that every single pirated copy means a loss of sales.
Note that I am not pro-piracy, I am just pointing out the phallacy of your logics.
The bottom line is this: The only way copying software, music, images, or anything digital is not stealing is if the person that put the effort into that product has specifically given permission to do so
Thus distributing his work further is all perfectly legal. Claiming it's illegal simply because he requests donations simply isn't true: it is GPL-licensed and he must follow the rules laid out.
Now, I still do understand why he is asking for donations and personally ain't planning to distribute his works, but judging someone else who does it is also wrong; it is within their rights to do so.
__________________
HAND, n.
A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody's pocket.
HAND, n.
A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody's pocket.
 |
|
2011-01-26
, 22:30
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#303
|
Originally Posted by riahc3
Read the post before this... Just slapping GPL on something near it doesn't give people the right to take it. If that were true we wouldn't have an OVI store, since anything running on the N900 would technically be a "derivative work" and have to be free. If you don't understand that, then it's you that needs to read the link above.
Noone is stealing anything sheriff. Read this and understand it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
Regardless, the end result is that attitudes like those stated are what kills future works for a product. When you have someone looking for minor compensation for something they spent a lot of time working on, only to be pissed on by cheapskates, it sours the chance of them continuing in that community. We could have gotten a skilled developer, with obvious experience. Instead we've pissed away that chance because a few people were too cheep to part with a Euro or two for something they're going to actually use quite a bit.
Why don't you go steal some music from your favorite band, and pirate some movies from producers you like? Kill the things you care about, instead of pissing in our cornflakes... Whiners.
|
|
2011-01-26
, 22:43
|
|
Posts: 255 |
Thanked: 160 times |
Joined on Oct 2010
@ Finland
|
#304
|
Originally Posted by woody14619
Incorrect. Most libraries are LGPL, not GPL, and thus you are allowed to create closed-source applications which aren't GPL-licensed. It's only if the apps use GPL-code withing them, or a GPL-licensed library that would make the app itself also GPL. LGPL allows one to link to the library and still retain the original license.
Read the post before this... Just slapping GPL on something near it doesn't give people the right to take it. If that were true we wouldn't have an OVI store, since anything running on the N900 would technically be a "derivative work" and have to be free. If you don't understand that, then it's you that needs to read the link above.
__________________
HAND, n.
A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody's pocket.
HAND, n.
A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody's pocket.
|
|
2011-01-26
, 22:50
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#305
|
Originally Posted by WereCatf
Wrong. They do incur a loss, the money that you (and those you distribute it to later) would have paid for it.
But when you pirate something the original owner does not lose anything physical nor does the act incur any monetary loss directly.
Originally Posted by WereCatf
Wrong again. The fact that you bothered to pirate it means you wanted it. It may be that the value you placed on it was different than what the author asked. But if you acquire it and use it, it clearly has value to you in the fact that you are using it! If you really wouldn't buy it anyway, then you wouldn't have it.
But if you wouldn't buy it anyway then there has been no monetary loss at all.
To say otherwise is attempting to alter reality by using twisted (and false) logic. Justifying it to yourself must make it easier to steal. Just like dehumanizing an enemy in combat makes it easier to shoot another human being. That doesn't make killing right, it only makes it easier.
Originally Posted by WereCatf
My "logics" is not in any way sexual....
Note that I am not pro-piracy, I am just pointing out the phallacy of your logics.
The only one using false logic here is you. If you acquire something without paying for it, that the author sought payment or royalty to use or enjoy, it's theft. Period.
Originally Posted by WereCatf
Yes and no. Read the GPL some time. Like I stated before, if the GPL were that black and white there would be no OVI store, nor would there be an N900 for that matter. What he's doing is quite legal, and legally, he could take action against people using his software without paying for it. It would probably be too cost prohibitive to do however.
Well, the author of these patches has indeed given such permission: he is patching GPL licensed software and thus it all remains derived works. He cannot distribute binaries legally without also allowing access to the sources _for free_ or else he will be breaking copyright laws.
Even if he were to use GPL software as his base, on selling it, it doesn't give you the right to pirate it. At most it gives the owner of the GPL rights the right to sue him for using their product to create a derived work and charging for it. That's reality, not the twisted chain of thought you're trying to express here.
Again, read what I'm saying here. Even if what you're saying is 100% true, and the GPL bindings were so strict that he's forced to give it away for free (which it's not), or give you the right to pirate it (which it doesn;t). Burning this bridge costs more than you're getting for it. You've effectively driven away a competent developer for a "free" driver with no support and source code that you yourself probably couldn't patch or maintain if your life depended on it. Is that a win?
|
|
2011-01-26
, 22:56
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#306
|
Originally Posted by WereCatf
You'll note what we're talking about here is not an app. It's a module, that plugs into the kernel. Several such modules in the N900 kernel are closed source. Making a closed source module is quite legit. So, thanks for making my point for me.
Incorrect. Most libraries are LGPL, not GPL, and thus you are allowed to create closed-source applications which aren't GPL-licensed. It's only if the apps use GPL-code withing them, or a GPL-licensed library that would make the app itself also GPL. LGPL allows one to link to the library and still retain the original license.
Again, see the page linked to earlier (to Wikipedia). There are legal professionals, who debate things like this every day, and even they disagree over how the GPL applies to things like plugins and kernel modules. It's not clear cut, and there's 0 case law around any of it.
|
|
2011-01-26
, 23:28
|
|
Posts: 255 |
Thanked: 160 times |
Joined on Oct 2010
@ Finland
|
#307
|
Originally Posted by woody14619
Having value doesn't mean you'd still buy it for the price the author is asking for it, you know.
Wrong again. The fact that you bothered to pirate it means you wanted it. It may be that the value you placed on it was different than what the author asked. But if you acquire it and use it, it clearly has value to you in the fact that you are using it! If you really wouldn't buy it anyway, then you wouldn't have it.
Yes and no. Read the GPL some time. Like I stated before, if the GPL were that black and white there would be no OVI store
__________________
HAND, n.
A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody's pocket.
HAND, n.
A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody's pocket.
|
|
2011-01-26
, 23:31
|
|
Posts: 255 |
Thanked: 160 times |
Joined on Oct 2010
@ Finland
|
#308
|
Originally Posted by woody14619
You were the one claiming that all OVI Store apps would be GPL, not me.
You'll note what we're talking about here is not an app.
It's a module, that plugs into the kernel. Several such modules in the N900 kernel are closed source. Making a closed source module is quite legit. So, thanks for making my point for me.
The author of these mods however directly links to the kernel and thus it makes them GPL.
Go ahead and study NVIDIA kernel modules for a good, professional and proprietary example.
__________________
HAND, n.
A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody's pocket.
HAND, n.
A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody's pocket.
|
|
2011-01-27
, 00:06
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#309
|
Originally Posted by WereCatf
Yes, and acquiring it without paying for it is still theft, you know.
Having value doesn't mean you'd still buy it for the price the author is asking for it, you know.
So you're saying it's ok to steal a Ferrari, since clearly they're overpriced and well above the value you'd place on it? Since they're asking too much, it's legit to just go take one? Wrong. And no twisted logical argument makes it right. Not for a car, not for music, and not for software.
And before I'm pegged as a Les Mis fan, I'm all about looking the other way if someone's stealing things they need to survive. A homeless person stealing a bit of bread, or a box to make a house out of, that's different. People need food and water and shelter. They don't need Word or Photoshop or an injection capable wifi driver.
You're trying to justifying theft for pleasure, not for need. Justifying it (I'd bet) to sooth your conscience for having digitally stolen material that you could have paid for, or done without, but stole because it was easier or more convenient.
As for the GPL thing, it's clearly something even people with legal degrees disagree about. Frankly, the point is moot now. The developer has already been burned, and probably won't be back. Given the chance to do work again like this, he'll probably either turn it down, or if he doesn't get paid for it will simply not release his changes. Either way, we lose.
|
|
2011-01-27
, 00:18
|
|
Posts: 255 |
Thanked: 160 times |
Joined on Oct 2010
@ Finland
|
#310
|
Originally Posted by woody14619
Where the f*ck did I say anything like that, huh? Where, do show me? All I said was that you can't count every pirated copy as a loss of sales, I NEVER ONCE SAID IT'S OK TO PIRATE.
So you're saying it's ok to steal a Ferrari
Next time learn to read before you start accusing people!
__________________
HAND, n.
A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody's pocket.
HAND, n.
A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody's pocket.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License