Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 469 posts

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#171

Post by drdeca »

traverseda wrote: post #120
shwaj wrote: post #111

Earlier 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…

It seems like a bit of a strong restriction to have in the law that if I distribute an executable (which people may reverse engineer, modify, redistribute as they wish) that I am obligated to provide the source code upon request.

Like, what if I want to release a rather difficult puzzle in the form of an obfuscated executable and provide a reward to the first person who solves it? If I’m required to release the source code upon request, then that kind of spoils the puzzle. (Sure, I can say that anyone who gets the source code this way is ineligible for the prize, but how could I tell?)

This is of course a somewhat silly and niche edge case. Still though, it doesn’t seem natural/appropriate for a law would prevent such a thing.

Whereas, agreeing to only distribute modifications I make to some software written by others if I’m willing to distribute the source code to my modifications, well, that would just be an agreement I would be making, and seems unobjectionable.

Though, I wouldn’t really claim that all IP is illegitimate. I think many IP protections go way too far and last too long, but, I think some amount of copyright and patents is probably a good idea, though for a much shorter duration. So maybe I’m not really in the camp being described.

I think the freedoms described in the GPL are good.

I guess one alternative could be to say that all software written “for a useful purpose” (or something like that) has to have the source code made available, and that could handle the puzzle case I mentioned?

It does seem important to avoid the case where one needs to use some software for something but is prevented from modifying it due to not having the source code.

So… maybe if one is only required to provide the source code if someone could reasonably be described as “needing” the software for something? (E.g. if you “need it in order to get your printer working”, or the like.)

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#172

Post by mx20 »

doubletwoyou wrote: post #121
mx20 wrote: post #100

Is he correct? That you can't have GPL files in your project without all code adhering to it? I thought it has to be linked static. So just calling a GPLed js library likely wouldn't be enough. I think the law is muddy here and not clear at all, even if the code is directly bundled.

I think you might be thinking of the LGPL, where it’s fine to use a piece of code if you dynamically link to it (and maybe something about providing relinkable object files, but I’m not too clear about that). The GPL, on the other hand, mandates that any code that interacts with GPL’d code must be GPL’d, unless it can be easily replaced or such and such (i.e. your non GPL code calls a GPL binary via fork & exec or th…

But if you create a plugin that calls (via mv2 api?) a separate GPL-licensed JavaScript file to block all ads on the page, and then use your own closed-source code to add your own ads in step 2, is it really integrated or just two separate programs bundled together?

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#173

Post by croes »

shwaj wrote: post #94

I 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.

Movie copyright violation: more people than intended can see the movie.

GPL violation: less people than intended can see the code.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#174

Post by coldpie »

tikhonj wrote: post #165
coldpie wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The GPL does the exact opposite of copyright; the fact that it uses copyright to achieve that is just an implementation detail. > If you believe information should be free to share and remix, you would believe that copyright infringement is not theft No, this is absolutely incorrect. GPL requires copyright (or similar mechanism) to function. Without copyright, anyone could take the GPL'd code and release a compiled…

The more direct solution would be a law that required distributing human-editable code alongside software. No need for copyright or anything remotely similar. Code being copyrightable would just be getting in the way at that point. But in a world where that is politically infeasible, we have to use whatever tools we have at hand to get as close as we can. And, unfortunately, the tool we happen to have is the modern c…

> The more direct solution would be a law that required distributing human-editable code alongside software.

Hmm okay yeah, I buy that. Good rebuttal, I retract my comment :)

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#175

Post by derac »

shwaj wrote: post #94

I 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.

Individual pirates are rarely profiting from it. I'd wager most people who think pirating a movie is fine aren't cool with printing 1000 bluerays and hawking them at the flea market.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#176

Post by tommica »

kristofferR wrote: post #145
tantalor wrote: post #125

Earlier 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…

Oh... This should have been obvious, but I only realized it from this comment.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#177

Post by jorl17 »

shwaj wrote: post #94

I 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.

Not saying I agree with infringing on copyright, but I don't think it's contradictory:

GPL: "The code must be shared" Downloading/Pirating movies. "The movies should be shared"

I don't think people that people who believe in the GPL and pirate movies often do so because "pirating is the right thing to do", but one can certainly make the case that they share the same basic idea.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#178

Post by greenthrow »

echelon wrote: post #163
skyyler wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>- Separation of church/state with mandated removal of religious symbols from students and government places vs freedom of religion with removal of LGBT symbols from students and government places >It's the same behavior on both sides, just different groups of people doing it. I'm actually curious to understand how you came to the conclusion that non-standard sexual and gender identities are equivalent to a religion…

> I don't mean to start an argument here, but do you actually believe that endorsing a specific religion is the same as endorsing gay rights? I'm LGBT and agnostic. Schools banning crosses and the Swiss banning burqa are very similar to the LGBT flag removal in Michigan. It's all censorship to enforce the ideology you agree with. A free society would do none of these things. Instead we have two angry sides playing ga…

I don't follow your logic. We have separation of church and state. Having religious symbols displayed by publicly funded schools violates that principle and favors the displayed religion(s). Protecting everyone's right to religious freedom requires not favoring any specific religions. This is pro first amendment.

An LGBT flag is a symbol of support for people who are not cis and straight. It is not a religious symbol. It is not infringing on any individual's right to practice their own religion. This is pro first amendment.

Banning burqas is oppressing muslim students' right to practice their religion, and is anti first amendment.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#179

Post by loeg »

shwaj wrote: post #94

I 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.

It's just different people. "Copyright infringement isn't theft" is an extremely niche viewpoint in general.

Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension

#180

Post by mirashii »

canucker2016 wrote: post #134
mx20 wrote: post #100

Is he correct? That you can't have GPL files in your project without all code adhering to it? I thought it has to be linked static. So just calling a GPLed js library likely wouldn't be enough. I think the law is muddy here and not clear at all, even if the code is directly bundled.

He's correct. GPL is called a viral license. Any project that you add GPL code to must be licensed under GPL (and made available to others under the GPL guidelines). That's why many commercial companies don't include GPL code - see Apple. LGPL is typically meant for code packaged as a standalone library called from other, possibly non-GPL, code. You can distribute and call LGPL code from your code but your code does…

> 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 their hardware, and is probably the core reason they do not ship GPLv3 software.

Post reply on HN