I thought config files can’t be copyrighted. The post talks about what appears to just be a config file.
It is the filter list, which are the things that defines ads and loaded by adblocker to block them.
uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
231–240 of 469 posts
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we know when Honey started stealing affiliate links? Was it after the acquisition?
Before, this is how ALL coupon sites/extensions have worked for decades. I'm frankly baffled it weren't more common knowledge, despite being common sense, before the MegaLag video. Did people really think that sites like retailmenot.com or wethrift.com make you open tabs to the shop you're searching for coupons for before you can see the coupon code just for fun?? Affiliate code stuffing is the coupon provider busine…
The main point is not so much their busines/industry model, but how they used creators to promote it .
isn’t it egregious when you make the people who are you stealing affiliate money from to promote the same thing ?
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
> pay $$ to extend it, increasing exponentially each time Doesn't work with DRM protected media. Version 1 will be pulled from circulation shortly before the time runs out, version 2 will be slightly altered and qualify for a brand new 14 year copyright. Buyers of version 1 will not receive any refunds and will be expected to pay the full price for version 2.
version 1 is now in the public domain - What's the issue?
Apart from having to crack DRM (which has not been a problem so far) I think this should work. Of course, DRM provisions should stop working when a DRM-encumbered media reaches the public domain.
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#234Yea but who is going to do anything about it? What is the enforcement method?
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that theft is a criminal offense, where you’ll be prosecuted by the state. Violation of a software license is not a criminal offense but a breach of contract, opening you up to civil suits. So, it’s up to the rights holder to file suit and drag you to court for damages.
One breaks the criminal law, another breaks the civil law. Both break the law.
Both break the civil law , you can absolutely sue the thief for damages for lost property.
Typically this is not done because it is not worth the lawyer expenses as recovery chances are pretty slim unless it is a kleptomaniac billionaire maybe , instead you claim insurance to recover on your losses.
Similarly copyright theft is also same as any other property theft, you can charge under criminal law as well , typically success rate is not high , but people have gone to prison over pirating movies or bootlegging stuff etc
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree completely, and yet I would still prefer language to be used consistently.
I think the "information want to be free" crowd is very consistent. They want the information to be free. They don't want artificial scarcity. Sure they'll use IP as a means to an end, but that doesn't mean they believe IP is a good idea in general. It's just one of few tools that exist to solve it. In an ideal world all software would be forced to be FOSS, and we'd have to come up with ways of funding it that aren't…
They want other people's information to be free for them. I doubt very much that they want their professional work to be free to other people.
It takes a certain kind of insanity to think that it's feasible to spend millions of dollars writing software when your customers are all entitled to take it for free.
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
One can still want much looser copyright. For example, 14 years by default, pay $$ to extend it, increasing exponentially each time (as compensation for stealing from the public domain). At least I'm willing to call extended copyright terms stealing if we're going to call format shifting and other personal use cases stealing.
> pay $$ to extend it, increasing exponentially each time Doesn't work with DRM protected media. Version 1 will be pulled from circulation shortly before the time runs out, version 2 will be slightly altered and qualify for a brand new 14 year copyright. Buyers of version 1 will not receive any refunds and will be expected to pay the full price for version 2.
Well, there should be laws to protect consumers from DRM, instead of laws to prevent consumers from circumventing DRM for legal uses, like say consuming the content they paid for on the device of their choice.
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's why many commercial companies don't include GPL code - see Apple. This is wrong in a couple ways. First, Apple ships plenty of GPL code. https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/bash/blob/bash-13... as an example. What Apple does not ship is GPLv3 code. GPLv3 had two major changes around patents and "tivoization". The tivoization clause in particular forces changes that break Apple's security model for the…
Thanks for the correction. This points to one area of Apple's use of GPL code. Apple doesn't want code licensed under GPL v3+ so they're sticking with the GPL v2 codebase (and custom-backporting bugfixes?). Apple uses Bash v3.2, GNU Bash is at v5.2.
Apple doesn’t have bash as their default anymore, it’s been zsh for years.
I presume they keep a bash around due to how ubiquitous it is for scripting.
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree completely, and yet I would still prefer language to be used consistently.
I think the "information want to be free" crowd is very consistent. They want the information to be free. They don't want artificial scarcity. Sure they'll use IP as a means to an end, but that doesn't mean they believe IP is a good idea in general. It's just one of few tools that exist to solve it. In an ideal world all software would be forced to be FOSS, and we'd have to come up with ways of funding it that aren't…
What if I hand-code something in asm?
What if I tell you I hand-coded something in asm, but secretly used a Rust compiler with an obfuscator?
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#240I know it’s not necessarily the same people, but it feels contradictory for this community to say “copyright infringement isn’t theft” when we’re talking about movies, but use the opposite language when talking about GPL source code.
Being fair these are semantically different meanings of “theft”. 1. Movie copyright is compared, by its owners and the law, to physical theft. This type of theft does not remove the physical use or any use from the owners. 2. GPL copyright only requires sharing changed code. Failing to disclose the changes actually does affect the owners in the way claimed. They’re two different social contracts and we need different…
We do have that. In law copyright infringement is categorically not "theft" and is not even handled by the same type of court.
The "copyright infringement (is / isn't) theft" argument is drivel on the same intellectual level as "corporations are people."