Loser..
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| theBeez May 19, 2014 4:27 AM EDT |
Great, you're an editor stating clearly that you violate the basic ethics of a journalist and then go about closing comments. In my book that would be enough firing you on the spot. A news site is not there to satisfy your own personal itches - if you want that: start a blog. In "classic" paper mags there is always room for an "editorial", which is clearly marked and not labeled as general news. And an editor who cannot stand the heat of his PERSONAL claims being challenged (especially when he falls through) is nothing more than chicken. |
| CFWhitman May 19, 2014 5:18 PM EDT |
The problem with this story isn't that guy mentioned in the story isn't wrong. The problem with the story is that he is not actually a "Defender of the GNU/GPL." The guy is just a jackass who was hoping to strongarm the company into letting him see the source code to the game by threatening them with licensing terms that turned out not to be relevant and which he doesn't even really seem to understand in the first place. So if Liam Dawe was trying to use this incident to prove a point about licensing zealots, he's barking up the wrong tree. |
| JaseP May 19, 2014 6:33 PM EDT |
What CFWhitman said seems correct... It seems like he was trying to exploit a loophole in the GPL to get a look at the source code... Personally, I don't see this whole thing as a real issue with the GPL, and don't see it poisoning developers from using the GPL or APIs that are GPL'd. Developers (generally) have the right to release their code on any terms they like... as long as their code isn't derivative of GPL code. |
| linux4567 May 19, 2014 7:19 PM EDT |
Actually it doesn't matter if that code was used or not, if it was compiled into the binary then the entire source code has to be released. I don't see why CFWhitman has to call this guy a 'jackass', as far as I can tell he is quite right to demand the source code and if this damages the profits of the game writers then that's their problem, next time they will be more careful not to mix GPL stuff with closed source stuff. In the forum thread the game dev himself admits that there is GPL code left in his binary so this is a clear cut case of GPL violation. The guy demanding the source code certainly wasn't exploiting any loophole, it is the primary objective of the GPL to give the software users access to the >>entire<< source code used to build the binary. |
| mbaehrlxer May 20, 2014 5:19 AM EDT |
as far as i understand the goal of the FSF and also gpl-violations.org is not to blackmail violators into giving out the source, but to come to terms to fix license violations and make them good citizens. this is not done by intimidation, but by pointing out the problem, and proposing ways to solve it, and also giving them the time to do so. i don't know what the outcome would be in this particular case, but it seems obvious that this goal was not on the mind of the person demanding the source. greetings, eMBee. |
| theBeez May 20, 2014 5:23 AM EDT |
Note I didn't take sides. This story may very well be to the point, since I don't have and didn't study all the materials to make a fair judgement. The point IMHO is that an editor admits not to like the GPL, uses this case to make his point and then shuts down all comments when he threathens to lose the discussion. I (personally) don't find it acceptable in a blog, let alone when you have the responsibility to run a news site. Did these guys ever have any decent education concerning journalism? |
| CFWhitman May 20, 2014 9:07 AM EDT |
Well, the impression I got of the guy making the claims came from quotations from his emails to the developers rather than from his forum posts. On the forum he seems fairly reasonable. If the quotations from the emails are accurate, then he wasn't truly that reasonable in his direct dealings with the developers. The developer who posted on the forums didn't seem to be completely right either. He seemed a bit too cavalier in his attitude about the whole thing. It's not really clear that he has taken care of the matter to the satisfaction of the license terms and the developers of the original code. Since the project in question was using the LGPL, the amount of code that would have to be released would probably not end up being all that substantial in the first place. I'm not sure exactly what arrangement would have been come to by people in a position to actually enforce the license (though I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually find out), but the person in the forums was not in a position to negotiate that. It was fine to inquire where the code might already be posted, but once the developers claimed that they weren't really using that code and would remove the file from the project, then he should have just notified the developers of the engine that they should look into the matter and left it in their hands to do something about it. Instead he appears to have asked to be personally sent the code or he would go to the FSF and Steam and get the game pulled for violations. He didn't seem to be concerned about license enforcement; he seems to have just wanted a copy of the code for himself. Edit: I should mention that I basically agree with theBeez about the columnist's behavior in this case. The editorial on GamingOnLinux was not really accurate, and the comments were closed prematurely (it's not like a flame war had erupted). Mr. Dawe should be able to endure a little disagreement if he is going to post editorials. If he keeps an open mind the replies might even make him think about things he hadn't considered and increase his understanding. |
| theBeez May 20, 2014 11:33 AM EDT |
@CFWhitman
I think we're on the same page here. But what I found particularly annoying is that this is NOT presented as an editorial. It doesn't carry a general title like an editorial, like "When licenses become a nuisance" and it is labeled "Social", not "Opinion". An average reader will conclude that this is a news story - not an editorial. Furthermore, (although he denies it later somewhat), he trades plain journalism for venting his own personal preferences: "The LGPL isn't a bad license, but zealots like this ruin it for me. Personally I much prefer the more open MIT license which stops issues like this". That is, because the licensing is completely different. It's like saying, "let's make all groceries free, so no one can steal a loaf of bread anymore". Finally, he doesn't get his facts right: " It's a code license and not a contract to be threatened with as pointed out by the Link Hamish provided". First, in Dutch law there is not much difference between a contract and a license. In the US, it is. In Dutch law, if you break a contract, nothing is going to happen UNLESS someone sues you: it's a civil case. Breaking Dutch copyright law MAY result in criminal prosecution AND you may get sued (under civil law) as well. I assume it is not much different in the US (being a federal offense). The bottom line is, there is NOTHING that allows you to use (L)GPL code, EXCEPT the license. If you don't accept the license and ALL it's provisions, it defaults to "YOU MAY NOT USE THIS". If you do, and don't comply you're fair game (legally). And that's why a license - and every burden that comes with it - falls on you the minute you use anything beyond "fair use". I think a professional company should be aware of this. |
| tuxchick May 20, 2014 1:37 PM EDT |
Quoting: as far as i understand the goal of the FSF and also gpl-violations.org is not to blackmail violators into giving out the source, but to come to terms to fix license violations and make them good citizens. Exactly right. Either come into compliance, or stop using the code. |
| CFWhitman May 20, 2014 4:36 PM EDT |
@theBeez: I'd say we pretty much agree, but I just wanted to mention that when I saw the story it was tagged as an editorial at GamingOnLinux.com. It's probably easy to miss the tag, but that is the standard way they classify stories at the site. It doesn't really matter, though, since I think my criticisms of it (and generally yours as well) are still valid. I've had a short forum conversation with Mr. Dawe before, and he's generally a good guy, but he can be a bit arrogant about his opinions. Disagreements about these types of things are fair and can broaden your viewpoint. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!