Big moral difference between the two. By shoplifting you are taking away something that the store legally owns. A better analogy would be if I walked into a store, looked over, say a toy car, then went home and made one just like it. There is no such thing as "stealing" software. Whoever wrote it still has it.
Fine! Then let's call it "Pirating"
There... A music to your ears eh?
Yeah, as long as you can modify the kernel config and can compile out-of-tree kernel modules (compat-wireless) it should be possible, but it will most likely never work with the stock kernel itself.
Law != respect
If the developer only has an option he would have made it a paid app. But he doesn't have any so he just asked for a donation instead. And the explanation you made was just the main reason why lxp doesn't take action on the leaked version. Maybe also the main reason why he doesn't provide any updates anymore.
I knew not everyone was paying a lot of money when obtaining their own copies, but did the total amount of money donated really remained so bellow the expected amount that it made him give up? o.o
well, the driver is working, there's no bugs, not much for lxp to do now until the next kernel comes out. i'm not sure if it's going to be integerated or if he has to make his own version again. i would like to see one with uboot attached because this is preventing me from triple booting meego/maemo/android.
Actually, no. There's NO moral difference, it's still stealing. By pirating software, you are taking away something that the owner legally has: The right to sell his craft.
Suppose I walked into a book store with a hand scanner, picked up a book, scanned the whole thing in, and then left. Is that theft? They still have their original. What if I went into a store that had a machine that made thousands of some type of tool every day, then took one of those tools and walked out. They can easily make another, at almost no cost, so that's not stealing, right? What if I made a replicator, then walked into a museum and replicated all of Van Goghs works. Would the originals retain their value, as I stood outside making free identical replicas for everyone to take home with them?
Just because the result of a craft is a virtual item that can be easily replicated at little/no cost doesn't make it legal to steal it. Your "going home and making one just like it" analogy is also false, as it implies everyone is looking at his work, then going home and writing their own code to do something similar. That's not what's happening here. They're using his code, code he spend time and effort learning, working on, and debugging.
Imagine you spent time learning how to draw exceptional images, and took the time to draw a stunning work, expecting to be paid for it. Then your backer doesn't pay, and you realize you spent lots of time and money doing this, and can't make another without selling that piece. You agree to show it to people, and a few people show up, take high res pictures of it, and leave, paying nothing. They then distribute those photos all over the world, rendering your original pretty much worthless. When asked about it, they reply with "art should be free", or "I'm morally opposed to paying for beauty".
Isn't that stealing? How many other artists will take the time to make such images in the future? How likely is that artist to do anything art related in the future? How many beautiful pieces has the world missed out on because people were to cheap to spend a buck on a piece art?
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, or if it's so old that it's declared "public domain" for lack of ownership (like very old books or music). Trying to justify stealing by saying it's "scene" or that it's not really theft because the owner still has their original is bogus. It's wrong, technically, morally, and in most places legally.
Uh.. wrong. In fact, the rules around modules and plug-ins specifically (which this is) is still highly debated even in GPL legal circles, which is clearly indicated in the link above. Not to mention that even if it doesn't break a law where you are, the same may not be true in other places. In the US, it can vary from state to state, as some states consider GPL to be a license, while others consider it a contract. The laws on each can vary quite a bit.
