uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by twostorytower » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 9:36 PM UTC

josephg wrote: post #190

twostorytower wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying this isn't a problem, it's just not a Honey-specific problem. If he actually wanted to influence change, he should cover the affiliate networks responsible for dictating this behavior (CJ, Impact, Rakuten, Awin, etc). The extensions are forced to comply by their rules.

> I'm not saying this isn't a problem, it's just not a Honey-specific problem. You didn’t just say that. You said a whole lot of other things. You lead with the fact that it’s well known within the industry. The implication of your comment is that the companies did nothing wrong, and people are idiots for not knowing this stuff before. If that’s not your stance, you should make your stance more clear. If you instead…

People should also be angry at all these other extensions and companies, they’re complicit and just as bad. But the source of change needs to come from the affiliate networks, who dictate the rules.

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

#202

Post by Alex-Programs » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 9:38 PM UTC

pseudo0 wrote: post #197

kristofferR wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is pretty funny how the MegaLag video claimed it was hard to find discussion of this online, and cited a HN thread from over five years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21588663 I suppose it's easy for us to forget how an average person really doesn't think about how cookies and referral links work.

Yeah, as I watched the video all I could think was "what the fuck did you think they were doing?". I'm surprised technical youtube channels were caught by it, although maybe they did the calculation that the money Honey was paying was worth more than the affiliate sales they'd lose. There's also value to getting that money immediately, rather than at some unknown point in the future.

The only part that seemed uncouth to me was setting the referral code when they hadn't actually found any coupons, and collaborating with retailers.

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

#203

Post by int_19h » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 9:40 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #167

traverseda wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can live in the gift economy or the money economy. Taking stuff from the gift economy and selling it is gross.

I dislike this framing. I was paid money for over a decade to write GPL'd code; I didn't do it as a gift. I release my code under the GPL for selfish reasons: I want others to be able to improve it, and me to be able to take advantage of their improvements. To me, it's not a gift, it's just the most efficient way to write software.

OP is not asserting that all GPL'd code is part of the "gift economy". I also wrote some GPLv2 code a large corp in the past, and I wouldn't consider it that, either. But projects like UBlock Origin that are run by volunteer contributors are very different.

You seem to be basing your rejection of "gift economy" as a label for the latter on the basis that it's not done for entirely altruistic purpose. But that is generally true of gift economies - most people who participate in them (and I'm not just talking of software here!) are not doing it out of purely altruistic motives, and actually expect to receive benefit from such an economy as well. Usually this is cultural, but some people, like you, might consciously believe that it's the most efficient way to distribute goods (whatever their definition of "efficient" might be).

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

#204

Post by SamInTheShell » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 9:42 PM UTC

I thought config files can’t be copyrighted. The post talks about what appears to just be a config file.

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

#205

Post by tzs » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 9:45 PM UTC

mirashii wrote: post #180

canucker2016 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

Note that the anti-tivoization provisions only apply to software that is sold with the hardware. If Apple wanted to use GPLv3 software in apps that you have to purchase separately the anti-tivoization provisions would not be a problem.

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

#206

Post by gs17 » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 9:47 PM UTC

moonshadow565 wrote: post #46

I don't think you can copyright lists of publicly available information (iirc there was some case with phone numbers before). That being said, they also stole code...

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg was sort of about this:

> For Zeidenberg's argument, the circuit court assumed that a database collecting the contents of one or more telephone directories was equally a collection of facts that could not be copyrighted. Thus, Zeidenberg's copyright argument was valid.[1] However, this did not lead to a victory for Zeidenberg, because the circuit court held that copyright law does not preempt contract law. Since ProCD had made the investments in its business and its specific SelectPhone product, it could require customers to agree to its terms on how to use the product, including a prohibition on copying the information therein regardless of copyright protections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg

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

#207

Post by iamacyborg » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 9:48 PM UTC

mathstuf wrote: post #166

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…

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.

> stealing from the public domain

How is it stealing from the public domain if it’s intellectual property you’ve created? Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck?

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

#208

Post by iamacyborg » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 9:51 PM UTC

medo-bear wrote: post #186

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.

infringing on copyright is like stealing from the rich infringing on copyleft is like stealing from the poor its the difference between robin hood and government corruption

A lot of folks creating unique IP aren’t rich though?

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

#209

Post by int_19h » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 9:52 PM UTC

greenthrow wrote: post #178

echelon wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think OP is referring to schools banning students from wearing crosses etc.

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

#210

Post by lizknope » Thu, Jan 02, 2025, 9:53 PM UTC

mx20 wrote: post #172

doubletwoyou wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Com...

The mere act of communicating with other programs does not, by itself, require all software to be GPL; nor does distributing GPL software with non-GPL software. However, minor conditions must be followed that ensure the rights of GPL software are not restricted. The following is a quote from the gnu.org GPL FAQ, which describes to what extent software is allowed to communicate with and be bundled with GPL programs:[74]

    What is the difference between an "aggregate" and other kinds of "modified versions"?

    An "aggregate" consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are non-free or GPL-incompatible. The only condition is that you cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users from exercising rights that each program's individual license would grant them.

    Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

    If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

    By contrast, pipes, sockets, and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

The FSF thus draws the line between "library" and "other program" via 1) "complexity" and "intimacy" of information exchange and 2) mechanism (rather than semantics), but resigns that the question is not clear-cut and that in complex situations, case law will decide.