Ethical Question

[Guest]

not so Mike.GPL does not preclude anyone from selling a derivative work, it only forces them to publish the source code of that work in such a way that interested parties can access it.It doesn't state that that code has to compile either, you may well require some 3rd party library that noone has access to for example that prevents that derivative work from compiling on anyone else's machines.Therefore being GPL does NOT allow you to crack it.It only allows you to require the author to release the source code to you, and I think to do so at cost or free of charge (but that I'm not certain about).So even if Helge had used a few lines of code made by Ted and such could be proven in a court of law (unlikely unless the volume was huge, identical code can easily develop independently in several peoples' brains) that would be no excuse whatsoever to pirate his work.You'd only have access to the sourcecode of the application from which you might be able to create a working equivalent (but more likely won't be able because Helge no doubt bought components and libraries which you will not have access to unless you buy them as well which may no longer be possible if they're discontinued by their creators).I've spent quite some time analysing the pitfalls of GPL code, not wanting to be caught up ever in a similar debate about my own work, and like many have decided to keep my own systems clean of any source released under GPL.

[jlohrenz 133]

If nothing else than in order to maintain a community the developer, if they choose to close up shop should at least entertain the option of selling the source code to a different party so they can continue or modify they product if they want. The 'fee' would not only include the source but the licensing abilities as well.I see nothing wrong with that. It provides a final source of income for the original developer and it allows the community to continue to enjoy the product in whatever future form the new owner chooses to manipulate it.

[Guest zzmikezz]

jwenting,I defer to your greater knowledge about GPL. Let me ask you this though: Is there any existing open source license that you consider to be adequate?

[Guest]

Adequate for what, that's the question.The APL is quite good, offers you freedom to use the licensed components without dictating how you use them.Or LGPL, which basically does the same except it requires modifications to the so licensed components to be released back to the original maintainers.GPL is a noose around developers' necks, when using it you essentially agree to turn everything you create over to the GPL community.This is so bad that if you use a binary library or a compiler that's created using GPL'd sourcecode you are forced to release your entire product under GPL, even if you never looked at a single line of GPL'd source yourself.That's why I won't have any of it on my systems, the risk is just too great.

[Guest]

Of course that's an option, but there's (and shouldn't be, we live in a somewhat free society still) no law about it.And you don't know if that's going to happen to FSNav. He may be in negotiation with a 3rd party about taking over the codebase and distribution license, unless and until an announcement about that is made there's no way of knowing.Or he may have made a gentleman's agreement with the guys who accused him of using their GPL'd source all those years ago that he'd never sell or release his sources except to them (and they've long since stopped developing Nav, it's been dead since about 2004 and sadly so).Or maybe he tried to sell or otherwise preserve it and failed, and now doesn't want to be bothered with the flood of support requests he's certain to get if he releases it for free.

[3catcircus 1]

>I quite understand it.>You want to pirate FSNav because you think it should not be>discontinued, and now you're digging up old unsubstantiated>accusations made years ago by someone else entirely to show>that you're allowed to pirate it.>>Your entire argument is pathetic, as Ernie already pointed>out.>It's based solely on your desire to justify to yourself your>decision to distribute pirated software.Spare me your mock outrage. I don't need to pirate FSNavigator, I've purchased a licensed copy. I never said I or anyone else should pirate anyone's software. I made the point that, in the past, the legality of FSNavigator was called into question.

[3catcircus 1]

>it's EXACTLY the same.>>And your totally unfounded BS about FSNav being based on GPL'd>code doesn't matter one iota.>Maybe if you had actual proof of it and were the author of>that GPL'd code you might have a case, but you don't.>And most likely you wouldn't have a case as there's no legal>precedent to support GPL's claims that anything that even>sniffed at something that's GPL must be GPL too.>>You're once again just trying to talk people into pirating>software, or maybe trying to justify to yourself and others>your desire to do so yourself.Way to use those ad hominem attacks.How is 1) A coversation on another website regarding FSNavigator that alludes to GPL violations,and2) The author of the allegedly infringed software clearly stating in the comments to his source that he had some level of proof of infringement based on: variable names, program structure, and code comments being *identical*somehow *not* some level of proof - enough to call it into question?

[N400QW 205]

Mike, understanding of various license systems and the vagaries of the arguments presented here are not what the OP asked.:-)The thread is titled "Ethical Question" and it goes to the heart of all of the arguments in this thread.The question is not whether a man can rationalize illegal activity by relatively obscure arguements in order to justify his behaviour but rather "is it ETHICAL to distribute copies of Intellectual Property that one does not own or have been granted distribution rights?" The answer is that there is no legal or ethical/moral ground to stand on if one attempts to justify such behaviour:-)

[Guest iphitus]

And regarding the GPL allegation -- there is no point whatsoever discussing that unless some proof is brought to the table. The copyright owner of GPL software is able to dual license and do whatever they like with their software. They can grant someone a license on whatever terms they like. Dual licensing is a common way of using this. Company's release the software for free under GPL, and sell licenses of different terms to other companies who wish to use it in their closed source software.If Helge came to some form of agreement with the copyright owner of Nav, then this would be considered a separate license, exempting Helge from the GPL requirements. If such an agreement existed and FSNav used Nav code, it would not be infringing the GPL.Even if you can find proof, you have no knowledge of any agreements they may have made, and Nav's developer would need to sue/settle with Helge for any change to happen.

[Guest zzmikezz]

Ron, You're absolutely right. As usual I'm in 100% agreement with you. However ...I have a perfect right to ask for jwenting's advice regarding the usefulness of GPL for open source developers and end users, and a perfect right to ask him what the alternatives are as he sees them, and he has a perfect right to answer, and to do so not only in this forum but also in this Ethics thread.Because of some other activities I'm involved in, an analysis of the impact of open source license issues, by someone who is knowledgable about these issues, is very useful to me. And so, jwenting, if you have anything further to offer on the subject of licenses and ethics of redistribution, I would like to hear it.

[N400QW 205]

Mike,Of course you have the perfect right to ask and Jeroen the perfect right to answer and I certainly wasn't infering anything to the contrary:-)Having followed your own postings and structure with regard to GPL and other licenses I understand your reasoning clearly and meant no harm to you or Jeroen in my post.My post was intended to answer the OP on the subject of the thread without being bogged down in the other discussions/arguments presented here.Good day gentlemen :-)

[Guest zzmikezz]

Best regards to you too, Ron. Folks, quite often miscommuncation arises simply because of differing sets of assumptions, as we have just seen. Consider "Who's On First", the classic Abbot and Costello routine. Get past the first minute and you'll die laughing ...

[Guest]

IMO the two are at least somewhat related.If there's no legal ground on which to do this it can't be ethical, therefore deciding that there's no legal ground is a good way to close the argument.Were there legal ground it might still not be ethical of course.

[bob.bernstein 0]

The least ethical person I've ever met was the lawyer for my ex-wife. That person put my three kids in harms way by arguing she get custody even though she was afflicted by Bi-Polar syndrome. I had to wait until she'd turned her custodial home into a meth house to have enough evidence to restore a proper life for those kids.That's when I learned that "legal ground" and "ethics" can never be trusted. /rant offBob

[Guest zzmikezz]

jwenting,I'm awfully sorry but I cannot agree with you in general regarding ethics and legality ...In the USA, there was a moment in time during the early 1930s when it was illegal at the federal level to possess hard liquour but legal to possess gold. A week later the situation was the reverse -- legal to possess liquor, illegal to possess gold.In neither case, and in neither situation within each case, was possession of either substance ever unethical.