Alleged GPL Violation Spurs Accusations, Lawsuit 126
lisah writes "Linux.com is reporting that Alexander Maryanovsky, the developer of Jin (a Java-based chess client), has filed a lawsuit alleging that International Chess University has violated several aspects of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Maryanovsky claims that the online chess training website and its CEO, Alexander Rabinovitch, are in violation of both his copyright and the GPL by distributing software that is based on Jin. According to the report, though Rabinovitch is dismissing most of the claims leveled against him, he has apparently left his native Israel for Canada and declines to give his exact whereabouts." Newsforge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
Already Posted (Score:4, Informative)
GPL Gets Its Day in Court in Israel [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Its an editorial and even describes and links to the slashdot discussion itself.
I would put this under a slashback article if it were painted in the slashdot colours.
Also, how come the linux article can include slashdot as related links but slash itself cannot?
Re: (Score:2)
usually they would link back to the original slashdot story, in this case they didn't know about it.
lucky for slashdot, people put up with dupes (even though they complain all the time)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently submitters and story-approvers decline to RTFA. As a non-subscriber, that means there are 3 groups (submitters, approvers, subscribers) who get to not read the article before I do.
Does the /. affect apply when there are already too many people not clicking the link to the article?
Now that's a poweful license (Score:2, Funny)
That sounds even harsher than what the BSA does to Microsoft pirates.
Editing our way out of a paper bag. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, they are, but we don't feel the need to point out that fact constantly.
Now, if you mentioned that Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG, that would be a relevant disclosure statement. I'm suprised no one mentioned it.
dilema (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
exact whereabouts? (Score:5, Funny)
"I've done nothing wrong and if anyone needs me I'll be in my secret underground chess igloo."
-- You give me beer, I give you condo. [vancouvercondo.info]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe the blinded chess variant which I've tried...each player has a board with only their own pieces on it. A referee (and the audience) ensures that players only make legal moves (not moving through another piece), and announcing "Check!".
Derived work (Score:5, Informative)
The whole socket thing is meant for something else. Staying in the realm of chess, there's a generic chess protocol that is used to interface engines with clients. If you have a server and a client communicating over such a generic protocol, and one of them is distributed under GPL, it doesn't mean that the other one also has to be GPL, because neither is a derived work of the other (again, IANAL).
Finally, regarding EULA - GPL is not a EULA. He can distribute the binary client under a restrictive license, but he has to provide the sources under GPL. Rabinovitch seems to be in non-compliance here as well.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
The question here is if the underlying chat engine code is dependent on Jin. I bet it is not, so the chat is not a derived work. If Rabinovich's extended client is a Jin with built-in chat, then - sure - it's a derived work. However if it's a voice chat application that also supports chess playing, then it is not a derived work.
In other words the case
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see the difference between Jin with built-in voice chat and voice chat with built-in Jin. Now if we'd have a stand a alone voice chat application that also happens to communicate with a slightly modified standalone Jin in a generalized way, the voice chat part wouldn't be a derived work, but from wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you saying that to me, I know that, what I don't know if the voice chat part links into the Jin part, do you? The answer to that question however has no bearing on other aspects of the case, such as non-compilable source code and correct copyright information.
Re: (Score:2)
How I wish more people would realize this.
The legally-binding license (v2) only says "Derived Work". Now, Jin is a chess client; what happened here is that Rabinovitch extended the client to do voice chat. Doesn't matter that he wrote it in a different language and that he interfaced it with sockets, this, to me, is a clear case of "Derived Work" (IANAL though).
"Derivative Work" has a specific (though maddeningly vague) legal definition. It is not the same as "dependency", a mistak
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the definition is particularly vague, that's one thing they're addressing in GPL v3.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still a very gray area. The modified software is indeed a derivative work. But the software that communicates to it is not. He must adhere to the terms of the GPL for the modified work, but not for the other. Original software is original software. Making a remote procedure call does not suddenly make it unoriginal.
that's one thing they're addressing
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL has always relied
Re: (Score:2)
I want to add one thing from my other post... One common mistake programmers make in regard to copyright law, is to assume that making procedure calls constitute copyright derivation. But this view is not in the legal definition. This is even more so for remote procedure calls.
I do not have much sympathy for those who consider this a loophole in the GPL. If you want proprietary like control over you software, then
Re: (Score:2)
Procedure call: Place values on the stack. Set the instruction pointer to a predefined location. Jump.
The header files may be copyrighted, but they are NOT patented. You use of the header file is not restricted, only how you may copy and distribute it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in all countries, many countries does not have that concept as it is in the US copyright law. If I am not mistaken, the person in case was Russian, living in Israel, right?
> It is not the same as "dependency", a mistake all too many people make. Communicating
>with a module via sockets does not constitute copyright derivation. Let me quote from Title 17:
That would only be relevant if you live or work in the US, not for
Re: (Score:2)
How do you come to the conclusion that you can distibute binaries under a restrictive license just because the GPL is not an EULA? The GPL is a distribution license, meaning that without it (lacking other agreements) you can't distribute the source code nor derivative works, like binaries without agr
I'm interested to see how this pans out (Score:1)
Maryanovsky needs to quite the whining... (Score:3, Informative)
MOD THIS GUY UP (Score:1)
Couldn't have summed it up better myself. Thread has been beaten!
Re: (Score:2)
Two applications communicating via sockets is not a violation - it's actually very common (for example talking to bugzilla via its http interface.. I know of some very expensive proprietary packages that do that). That's not a derived work it's a collective wor
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the GPL is not a EULA. It has nothing to do with using the software. It has everything to do with developing and distribution.
Re: (Score:3)
TFA:
Rabinovitch is talking out his ass to suit the taste of people who don't and don't want to understand the GPL. The GPL's dead plain on his hypothetical: link with proprietary code: fine. Distribute the result: illegal.
Maryanovsky claims th
Simple fix for Rabinovitch (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds to me like Rabinovitch could answer Maryanovsky's objections by distributing source to the Jin-plus-sockets-adapter and source to a do-nothing socket-plugin to replace his chat application (without performing its chat function). That would make the modified Jin compile and run from the supplied sources - as Jin - without the proprietary code.
(It would also provide a skeleton in case somebody e
Re:Maryanovsky needs to quite the whining... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bull. From the article:
If this account is accurate - there has never been an issue with Jin being used for commercial interests. Granted - there are a contingent of folks who just don't understand that the GPL has little to do with commercial use of licensed code. I've met folks who bristle about "paying for Linux" or other such complaints. This does not seem to be the case at all. If Jin was used as the client-of-choice for the IChessU service without modification then there would be no issue. And your point would be valid.
IChessU use of sockets is an interesting point. You might have a valid point claiming Maryonovsky can't have issue with this. In doing so, you've clearly decided to dismiss the various details of this. The reader might want to look in to it a bit more.
Of course - there are more issues in the case. You're also ignoring IChessU's client EULA.
I know its more fun to poke at the GPL. But you're being misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Absolutely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Rabino
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With that in mind, I would again stress that the premiss of your comment seems to be that this whole complaint is simply sour grapes. And again, I don't see it. You'd have to show some
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think maybe this case needs closer examination to see if in fact
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So I think your critique of the guy as a whiner is unwarranted. I agree Maryanovsky's posts are a bit confusing at times, but then, I don't think any of these guys are native English speakers so you have to cut them a break.
Is it mere bundling? (Score:2)
Whether it is "mere bundling" or a derived work most likely depend not on the specific mechanism the two components use to communicate, but whether it happens through standard, predefined protocol.
If Jin already included a socket interface and a documented protocol for remote control, Maryanovsky has to live with the fact that someone used it (or he should have used the Alladin Licence).
If it was something Rabinovitch created for IChessU, he will h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The IChessU client connects to Jin through sockets, and Maryanovsky claims that the intimacy of this connection makes the two programs one.
Two points:
(1) IChessU doesn't connect via sockets.
(2) Even if it did, Maryanovsky might still be right. Although the GPL talks about linking, the GPL doesn't really get to decide what constitutes a derived work under copyright law. The courts get to decide that. If this were to go to court (and if IChessU did connect via sockets, rather than linking), it see
Did they get the source via P2P (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even think it's funny, more insightfull, I have not seen anyone respond and expalin the difference to me...
(People have tried to "explain" the difference but no one has managed to do this using coherent reasoning....)
Some comments and corrections (Score:5, Informative)
[Rabinovich] now points to online articles that he believes supports his position, such as Eric Schnell's and Jason Rumney's blogs.
Eric Schnell [blogspot.com] got the whole thing backwards. He thinks that Jin has an A/V module, which IChessU decided not to use and thus do not publish its source code. From his blog:
From I can make out, Jin's creator Alexander Maryanovsky's problem with IChessU is that while IChessU has utilized Jin's code, they are not distributing Jin's entire source code. An A/V module in Jin is not being used by IChessU and therefore the source code is not included.
I've tried to respond to his blog, but his captcha seems to be broken. I've emailed him but got no response so far.
I couldn't find anything related on Jason Rumney's [jasonrumney.net] blog, even with a google search [google.com].
"All the articles were produced only by Maryanovsky people/fans," [Rabinovich] says, "which is fine because they are published in developer's magazines/sites..
Where would Rabinovich have GPL violation related articles posted? A cooking magazine? Are Slashdot, Yediot Ahronot and Arstechnica all my fans? I didn't know I was that popular.
"He also said," Maryanovsky writes, "that they are planning to wrap Jin in a layer that would allow it to be controlled via a socket. I told [Rabinovitch] that I believe this would still, most likely, be violating the GPL." Despite this opinion, IChessU proceeded with its plan [snip]
That's wrong. As I mention on my page, they abandonded that idea and proceeded to use Jin in a straightforward manner.
Rabinovitch, however, writes [snip] The guy is hurt
Gee, I wonder why I'd be hurt? Could it be because Rabinovich stole my work?
Rabinovitch rejects the charge of bad faith negotiations because it is made without any explanation or evidence.
As I explained to him in my response [sf.net], there's was no need to explain anything or bring evidence. The letter was to him - he already knows all the evidence! He was there at the negotiations!
Writing to NewsForge, Rabinovitch states that all source code was posted to the IChessU site, including that for the audio-visual module -- a claim that cannot be substantiated, since all code has now been removed from the IChessU site. He characterizes the audio/voice module as a separate program that "has nothing in common with the original Jin (it is even written in a different computer language!).".
So if the source code to the A/V module was released under the GPL, as required, why argue that it's a separate program? Not that it makes any difference, as that is exactly the point of the GPL - even unrelated code becomes "infected", as long as it's part of the same application. If I didn't want unrelated code infected, I'd release Jin under the LGPL. That is the whole difference between the GPL and the LGPL!
What if we integrated into Jin a Microsoft Word button -- would Mr. Maryanovsky then claim that we should publish the Microsoft source code as well?
No, I would then claim that they cannot publish the resulting application at all, as the GPL clearly states:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
As has been pointed out many times - you do not have any rights to a GPLed application except for the rights that the GPL gives you. The GPL does not give you the right to add a "Microsoft Word button" to Jin (excep
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't find anything related on Jason Rumney's blog, even with a google search.
I can't think of anything related on my blog either, and if I were to post something, it would certainly not support Rabinovich.
Re: (Score:2)
One step too far? (Score:1)
What's so hard to believe about his explanation?
Or did you mean to imply (from the laundry list of statements you discounted above) that you wouldn't believe him if he said "wate
Watanabe Vu? (Score:1)
So many Commie Ruskies in Israel - how come ?? (Score:1, Funny)
Everybody gets this wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
In RMS's ideal world {and mine for that matter}, it would be law that every piece of software had to come with Source Code {this being necessary for the meaningful exercise of Freedoms One and Three}, either at the time it was obtained or anytime later on request; and failure to supply the Source Code on request would be punishable. Source Code isn't the only requirement, but we're simplifying a little here. Anyway, Freedoms Zero and Two can be taken by force if necessary; at the present time, it is orders of magnitude more difficult {though mathematically not impossible} to obtain Source Code by forcible techniques.
The GPL is a sort of "second best" approach, a way to approximate the ideal situation using existing laws.
Existing copyright law already says that if you want to distribute copies of something someone else originally made and which is still under protection of copyright, you usually need permission in writing from that person. The law actually gives you some limited right to make copies in the name of "fair dealing" or "fair use", which nothing can take away -- even if you promise not to exercise your statutory rights, you can go ahead and do so anyway without fear of repercussions. The other person is a sucker for believing in a worthless promise.
Now, if you have written a program and want people to use it, it's clear that you have to make some provision for distributing copies. This is where copyright law comes into play. If, as a fine upstanding citizen, you want to ensure the Four Freedoms for everyone who uses your program, then you can give permission to distribute copies of your program so long as they preserve the Four Freedoms for everyone who receives a copy from them.
The GPL is a letter of permission to do things above and beyond what the Law of the Land allows, on certain conditions. What it basically says is that: you get Freedom Zero whatever happens, and you get Freedom Two if and only if you don't seek to deny any subsequent recipient of the program from you any of the Four Freedoms. If you don't comply with the conditions of the GPL, then it doesn't give you any permission to do anything, and normal copyright law applies.
If you make a derivative work of a GPL program and don't show it to anyone else, then the Law of the land says you can do that: it's Fair Dealing. However, once you overstep the bounds of Fair Dealing, you require written permission. And the GPL only affords permission if you comply with certain conditions. If you do not comply with the conditions of the GPL, then you are in violation of copyright law.
Re: (Score:2)
you require written permission. And the GPL only affords permission if you comply with certain conditions. If you do not comply with the conditions of the GPL, then you are in violation of copyright law.
Unless you get your written permission from the copyright holder on another basis.
They negotiated over that, for a feeble 4000, but he decided not to buy that permission. Therefore, he is still in violation of copyright law.
Re:Everybody gets this wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
He does not hold the copyright in the work in question, he did not comply with the conditions of the GPL, he did not pay for the commercial licence and his acts of distribution go well beyond Fair Dealing. Therefore, however you look at it, he is in violation of copyright.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Naw, that'd be a BSD-style license, not a GPL :)
How is anybody hurt? (Score:1, Insightful)
The commercialized version may offer features that would not or could not have been developed for the open source version in a financially-viable way. Yes, sometimes it is in everyone's best interest for there to be commercial deve
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pleading lack of time, Maryanovsky suggested that IChessU could either use Jin or pay him $4,000 for a commercial license instead.
So there was an unrestricted commercial license available for $4,000 and instead they took the GPL version and violated its distribution license. If the accusations about license violation are true, this is just as much piracy as selling illegal versions of Windows or any other software.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again AFAIK no suit has gone all the way to trial, another beef the
-nB
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
No, the average Slashdot is miffed that the can't "share" theri freinds (anonymous people on the internet = freinds in their world) music, software, etc. The think that because someone, somewhere, paid $14.99 for a CD, the artist has been compensated, along with everybody in between. They fail to see that the cost to reproduce that 1 CD does not equal the "production costs".
While the RIAA are
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Except that their product is absurdly overpriced and most of the profit goes straight to big label's pocket anyway (not to mention payola money). If an artist wants to make real money, he should be on the road, sweating, making shows. I refuse to pay 1/10th of my wage (in Brazil) for a CD, but I'd happily pay the same money for a show (although great shows rarely happens in my city), where I can see my favorit artist performing in an unique manner. If big labels lowered their CD prices, their sales would ra
Re: (Score:2)
"If big labels lowered their CD prices, their sales would ramp up and more people would be interested in their artists shows. It's called Loss leader."
Record companies get 99% of their revenue from the sale of records, so selling at a loss is not an option. As it is, many record companies end up with net margins of less than 20% (I believe the Canadian recording industry as a whole barely hit 10% last year) so they don't have a lot of room to play with on pricing, either. This will be wholly misundersto
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
However, things might be totally different in Brazil.
Indeed they are: here, some "independent" labels (aka, not the big ones) somehow manage to sell a CD for ONE THIRD of big label's price. Unfortunately for us, there are few of those and most artists are more easily seducted by big labels.
Regarding radio, it's really not a choice. Commercial radios nowadays only play "recent" music (aka music whose label payed fat payola). And usually their selection sucks big time (IMO).
And no, Brazilians are not r
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I've contributed to open source projects just by using my $500 Mac Mini and a few hours of my time. By comparison, a decent studio and engineer might cost you $500 a day.
Uh, not any more. A decent studio consists of a home computer, a good soundcard, and some software (often included with the computer or sound card). A decent studio engineer can be yourself or a friend.
If you think otherwise, either you haven't followed what's been happening in the last years in music software, or you have different c
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Uh, not any more. A decent studio consists of a home computer, a good soundcard, and some software (often included with the computer or sound card). A decent studio engineer can be yourself or a friend. If you think otherwise, either you haven't followed what's been happening in the last years in music software, or you have different concepts of what's "decent" when it comes to music studios and to programming labs."
Tools get better and cheaper, no matter what business you're in, but you still have to
Re: (Score:2)
Tools get better and cheaper, no matter what business you're in, but you still have to have that talent.
So how's that different from programming? (It was you who made that comparison, not me).
That doesn't mean that you need an expensive engineer and producer in a rented studio to produce music. It would be like saying all free software projects need to rent their own office with their own programmer. They don't. Free software programmers do it as a hobby. So do musicians.
With regard to the gear, a d
Re: (Score:1)
That old standby, radio carries the songs that the RIAA pays them to. It's called Payola [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the "Information wants to be free" division of slashdot do not want the process to take part at all. They don't want any settlements, the small suits, the big suits, the suits against the tools or the companies profiteering on it (Napster, Grokster), the technological blocks (DRM), the laws (DMCA) and any and all lawsuits based on it.
They should have to file o
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Leaving aside the point that there exists more than one person on Slashdot, it's notable that on software piracy threads, far more people tend to be against the idea of people profiting from copyright infringement, or doing so in a commercial context in some way. So this isn't connected to the RIAA suing grannies for downloading stuff to listen to.
Re: (Score:1)
self defense (Score:1)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Though your sense of entitlement seems to be a tad overwhelming.
The GPL is a license that grants users far more rights than copyright law would normally allow. The alleged infringer here was in no sense restricted by the GPL; it gave him a bunch of rights that he had under certain conditions, and that he wouldn't otherwise have had under copyright law, and he is alleged to have broken those conditions while exercising the rights.
If your uncle lets you live in his house rent-free as long as you don't have any pets, then he is entitled to use the law to evict you and your ferret when he finds out you've breached the terms. Bitching about it just makes you look like a spoiled brat.
If you want to complain about restrictions in software licenses, try some proprietary licenses which bind you under contractual terms that force you to give up MORE rights than the ones that copyright law takes away from you. You're not allowed to reverse engineer Windows or sue Microsoft, for example, if you use their software.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Compared to the extreme permissive licenses like the MIT or BSD licenses, the GPL lifts less of the restrictions placed by copyright law, though. You don't get the right to restore the copyright law restrictions that the GPL lifted, for one. It also lets copyright law bar you from distributing binary-only copies in order to make it impractical to modify the software.
While there are plenty of good reasons why people might prefer thoes licenses, it strikes me that bitching about not having those rights, in the name of freedom, is a bit like a southern US plantation owner complaining about the loss of his freedom to own slaves...
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting you would use these words to describe the BSD and MIT license. Wouldn't the software freedom fighters of the world want a more permissive license model?
"While there are plenty of good reasons why people might prefer thoes licenses, it strikes me that bitching about not having those rights, in the name of freedom, is a bit like a southern US plantation owner complaining about the loss of his freedom to own slaves..."
I thin
Re: (Score:2)
Less restrictive is still restrictive.
My rephrasing: "Normally I wouldn't give you anything, but here's $10, consider yourself lucky", and then you whine that I didn't give you $20.
But neither of these analogies are really relevant here (not redistributing someone's software doesn't infringe on you in the same way as forceably chopping
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wild guess - you're stirring up the GPL vs BSD debate, aren't you? You're pushing the gambit that the GPL is not actually free while the BSD license is. Unfortunately - the BSD license is also restrictive. So shall we just jump to the logical conclusion and call for releasing all code to the Public Domain?
Of course - that completely ignores the reasons behind the GPL and BSD licenses. But hey - let's not bother with such complexity.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
What's up with the attitude
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky indeed, since without the GPL you wouldn't have an "arm" at all since copyright took it away.
Of course, if you find the GPL too "restrictive" you can simply disregard it. You don't need to accept t
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not trying to be nitpicky, but you missed two points. One: The GPL doesn't differentiate between distributing it for free or profit. Distribution is distribution. The GPL doesn't care if you make money or not. (See the preamble of the GNU/GPL [gnu.org])
And not all GPL software is "free" as in price. I can make a software package under the GPL (independ
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However, once one person has paid the $1000 for a copy of the program, there is then nothing to stop
Re: (Score:2)
What is what I meant and said in the parent with:
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this is the business model a lot of slashdotters choose:
1. Pirate!!1!
2.
3. Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat after me:
THE GPL DOES NOT GOVERN USE, IT GOVERNS DISTRIBUTION.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM advocates could say the exact same thing--DRM doesn't govern use, it governs distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they could, but they'd be lying. If you're trying to tell me that Apple's DRM doesn't stop me from using the track I downloaded in any way I'd like (for instance, playing on a non-Apple music player), you need to do some more research.
By its nature, DRM impacts use. If it didn't impact use, it wouldn't impact distribution either. This is because it's a technological rather than legal remedy, and only
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No it doesn't! This was exactly the point which was being made. I can take GPL code and change it in any way I like and use that modified version and the GPL license imposes no conditions on me at all.
However, if I take my modified version of the code and pass (or sell) it on to someone else then the GPL kicks in. As soon as I distribute it I have to then release my modified code under the GPL.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong. Change anything you like. The GPL only kicks in when you start DISTRIBUTING.
DRM advocates could say the exact same thing--DRM doesn't govern use, it governs distribution.
As another poster said, They could but they'd be lying.
Either you don't have any clue what DRM is or you are deliberately lying.
It seems pretty clear that you don't have a good understanding of the GPL or DRM. I suggest you do some r
Just ignore the GPL, like it says you can! (Score:2)
So you think that the GPL is unfair and unreasonable. So ignore it! That's right, just pretend that the GPL isn't even there! It even says right in the GPL itself that you can do this. (Paragraph 5: "You are not required to accept this license.")
There's your answer. Act as if the GPL doesn't exist
Re: (Score:2)
So let me get this straight: If someone produces some sort of product and puts a bunch of limitations on how I can or cannot use said product that instead of disregarding those limitations and doing what I want that I should actually either respect those limitations or do without the product altogether?
Not at all. This is not a case of a product. This is simply copyright. Some guy spent a lot of time and work writing a program that solves a problem. Cool. They say anyone that wants to can use that progra
Re: (Score:2)
If someone produces some sort of product and puts a bunch of limitations on how I can or cannot use said product
Your premise is incorrect. The GPL is based on copyright law. There is no product; there is only a copyable work, as in a work of art. There are no restrictions on use, there are only restrictions on copying, distributing, and performing said work.
Think about it. The RIAA is not complaining about how you are listening to music; they are complaining about you copying, distributing, an
Re: (Score:1)