Pirating GPL Software
krisives.github.io
krisives.github.io
I was giving the author benefit-of-the-doubt earlier, but this follow-up just seems… petty, if not malicious.
> Their respective communities seem convinced that you can pirate GPL software, which I find fascinating.
But nowhere do they say it's illegal to do so. They consider the distribution to be akin to illegal piracy, because they consider it the Done Thing to pay for the Pro distros.
Regardless of how someone else pays for software doesn't change the rights the GPL affords everyone else.
Literally drove the creator of Kubuntu out of the project on trumped up bullshit when he wouldn't play along (and also kept asking questions about the 120k of donations that went missing ...)
The GPL seems to be crafted around this fact:
> With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. A high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is free.
While today's Linux can't get away without company support that support is a consequence of the license. As much as I despise GPL, it allowed projects to stay open even when every core contributor being hired away would be a profitable move for some companies.
> That seems strange that elementaryOS developers would try to deny others the same rights that were essential in allowing them to make and distribute elementaryOS in the first place!
ElementaryOS didn't name their project "Debian".
GPL gives you permission to use software that is copyrighted, it does not affect other forms of IP. The GPL absolutely does not give you the right to use trademarks or patents -- even if they are embedded within those same projects.
See: CentOS/RHEL.
Is the vast majority of the elementaryOS distribution from Debian/Ubuntu upstream?
> The GPL absolutely does not give you the right to use trademarks or patents
The GPL does give users the right to verbatim copy works as they were originally distributed.
Yes. This is true...as it pertains to copyright. The GPL does not convey any other rights, including trademark, patents, the right to sleep on Torvald's couch, or anything else. If something is not copyrightable, it cannot be licensed with GPL.
Names cannot be copyrighted. They are covered by trademark law, which GPL does not address... because it is a copyright license.
They would need to provide this kind of additional text in their license, but they did not.
That clause is there (in GPLv3) to clarify that someone can reiterate their trademark rights while using GPLv3, but only as much as it doesn’t affect the licensing of the copyrighted work.
It is saying that GPLv3 is not compatible with a phrase about trademarks that would restrict copyright, like: “if you say this is for Debian then you can’t copy it”
The natural state of trademark law is that you can mention other people’s trademarks. You can say your project is compatible with Debian. You just can’t use them to misrepresent yourself to consumers. That’s law, not GPL.
It appears that GPLv3 also has a patent grant
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
> 11. Patents.
> A “contributor” is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The work thus licensed is called the contributor's “contributor version”.
> A contributor's “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.
> Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.
> (...)
Do you mean linking to the publicly filed trademark application with redactions?
>A post submitted to /r/zorinos was acquired by using DHT scraping to find the ZorinOS 16 Pro download. It also verified that the SHA256 sum matched the one on the ZorinOS website which rules out any potential for malicious activity.The post was specifically removed for “software piracy”.
...
>Technically this is not a violation of the GPL because they are allowed to police their various forums however they wish. I am still free to redistribute the software and they have still published their source code changes, but it seems like a strange loophole.
I wonder actually...
Section 10 Paragraph 3 of gplv3[0]:
>You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.
Section 6 subsection d, sentence 3: If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
The license doesn't apply to the host or anyone who removed my post.
They license linux from linus (and fsf generally), they are licensees as much as licensers
The GPL does not say that you must publish anyone else’s derivative work.
The concept you are suggesting is ridiculous. Imagine if Linus had to host every kernel fork ever.
..is the key phrase. GPL is only an exception to copyright. It gives people the right to be exempt from restrictions that copyright law places on them by default.
It doesn't give anyone the right to use trademarks, participate in the community, or anything else -- because those things were never restricted by copyright law in the first place.
It would be silly if it did. Torvalds is not required to host your code for you on his website, nor is he required to accept your PR.
GPL clearly places the obligation to distribute source code on the licensee.
downstream oses are licensees of the source as much as they are licensers, they have to obey the gpl and not do anything to prevent people from conveying the source and object forms of the work.
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.
The GPL grants the legal right to distribute. Meaning, you can’t be held liable for copyright infringement if you distribute it.
GPL projects can and usually do limit the people who can participate in their project. This is completely legal.
GPL is good for more than just forking.
> The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.
if elementary os people do not have a registered trademark to enforce this, then they shoud have "recommended" the repo owner to change the name, not giving an order and linking their company brand webpage.