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

211–220 of 469 posts

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

#211

Post by josefx »

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.

> 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.

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

#212

Post by freedomben »

iamacyborg wrote: post #207
mathstuf wrote: post #166

Earlier 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.

> 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?

> Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck?

I don't necessarily agree with GP or you, but this isn't a good argument because anyone other than libertarians (i.e. anyone who supports taxation), which in practice is pretty much everyone, does believe that.

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

#213

Post by totallynothoney »

ndriscoll wrote: post #200
totallynothoney wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree more, fellow authentic consumer! As a completely real person with no vested interests, I must say this resonates with my genuine, unprompted experience. Thank you for sharing your totally unscripted thoughts!

This but unironically. Why would an authentic consumer care whether the right shill gets paid, and be upset that instead some other party does and they get a discount or cash back? Do all of the upset people work in ads or ad-adjacent industries or something? Are the "influencers" (i.e. propagandists) trying to manufacture outrage and make it seem like normal people care? Please think of the spammers!

The problem is that beyond stealing the affiliate rev, which might matter if you actually like the person (like project farm for me), Honey is in bed with merchants and will give negligible discounts or nothing depending what the store wishes. The whole "scrapping the internet for coupons" is practically speaking a lie. Also even if you don't give a shit, reduced affiliate revenue means that creators are more likely to sponsor in-video, which is annoying if you don't know about sponsor block.

For me is mostly the same the disgust when I discovered that hyperparasitoid wasps exist.

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

#214

Post by freedomben »

jjmarr wrote: post #170
tikhonj wrote: post #136

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 and that not releasing code is wrong. The fact that the proprietary code is based on GPL code just shows that the ex-Honey folks are hypocrites: they're trying to use copy…

Copyright itself is arguably theft sponsored by the state, because information can naturally be freely used/shared by all of humanity. Creating property rights in information reduces the collective knowledge of humanity (the commons), because now information can't be shared. The goal of the GPL and viral licensing is to undo copyright as such. I don't agree with this maximalist approach because many forms of knowledg…

> The goal of the GPL and viral licensing is to undo copyright as such.

This does not match my understanding. My understanding is that the goal of the GPL is to weaponize the copyright system to enforce copyleft. Many creators and supporters of the GPL do oppose IP laws (at least in their current form) but the goal specifically of the GPL isn't to destroy copyright, it's to weaponize it to accomplish higher purposes.

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

#215

Post by NikkiA »

derac wrote: post #175
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.

Also most pirates abhor people that charge for access to pirated content.

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

#216

Post by timewizard »

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.

> this community to say “copyright infringement isn’t theft” when we’re talking about movies

I wasn't aware there was this community standard. I explicitly disagree with it and I presume many others here would as well. The contradiction exists only in your one sided assertion.

I think the position is more nuanced. Once I've paid for the movie then breaking it's "copyright circumvention measures" so I may copy it or display it for my own purposes and reasons is neither immoral or illegal regardless of what hollywood or the law they paid for says.

I also think that Copyright terms being the life of the author are explicitly in violation of the Constitution, let alone, life plus some arbitrary term. These laws have fallen out of the service of the many and into the hands of the few.

There's a habit to "point out the contradiction" in these forums. I think it's almost always misguided.

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

#217

Post by ndriscoll »

octacat wrote: post #114
twostorytower wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This video is just rage bait and weaponizing creators and their fans by singling out Honey and not providing any additional context. Anybody in the affiliate industry knows how last click attribution works. This isn't new or specific to Honey. CapitalOne Shopping, Rakuten, RetailMeNot...they all work the same way. Merchants partner with these shopping extensions knowing how they work, nobody forces them to do so. The…

Except honey does not clarify that it replaces the referral link anywhere. The vast majority of shopping sessions do not have attribution, so adding attribution to them would just drive prices higher for regular users, damaging both users and the sellers.

It could lead to lower prices if they are indeed replacing referrals. Supposing the retailers notice that this is a huge affiliate, basically understand what's happening, and negotiate a smaller commission for these programs (they obviously have a lot of negotiating power since they aren't really getting referrals and could just ban these programs, destroying them), they might have a lower overall cost.

I imagine people running affiliate programs have heard of rakuten, for example, so I suppose they have some reason they haven't banned it (i.e. it actually benefits them/lowers overall costs).

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

#218

Post by doubletwoyou »

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?

I don’t know about that hypothetical case, but from what the redditors are saying, it looks like the Honey team are directly including and calling upon the GPL’d code, which I’d say constitutes derived work.

For that specific hypothetical, I’d say it would function as a derived work, but others would be able to answer better.

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

#219

Post by Brian_K_White »

tikhonj wrote: post #136
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.

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 and that not releasing code is wrong. The fact that the proprietary code is based on GPL code just shows that the ex-Honey folks are hypocrites: they're trying to use copy…

The gpl sets terms, employing the right to set terms.

The fact that those terms are not for money is the implimentation detail.

The fact that there are terms that you are required to agree and adhere to, OR live without the goods, that is not.

Just like the normal terms for money, your choice is you can take it according to the terms, or leave it. Not just take it and ignore the terms.

It's definitely a special level of low to steal something that's already free.

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

#220

Post by NikkiA »

matt3210 wrote: post #160

It wouldn’t surprise me if most companies steal GPL code. When code is closed source, how can anyone know?

Usually 'strings' on the binary shows up tell-tale signs.

Granted that means the 'smart' infringers are likely to slip through the sieve, but at that point they'll have to essentially be re-writing the code anyway, and lose most of the benefit that they'd get stealing the GPL code (they'd have to hand-roll any bug or security fixes back into their stolen-but-obscured GPL code)

Post reply on HN