As if Honey isn't already under enough fire with half the youtube world releasing videos about their shady practices.
Legal Eagle is suing: https://youtu.be/4H4sScCB1cY?si=bXxfG_EekkzGEW7J
uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
281–290 of 469 posts
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#282As if Honey isn't already under enough fire with half the youtube world releasing videos about their shady practices.
Title is misleading. The original team behind Honey has created a new company that is doing this and not Honey itself which is owned by Paypal.
Title says team behind honey. (was it changed?)
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#283I 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.
I guess the difference lies in ownership. If I pirate movies I won't claim that I own the rights to that movie. Can't really say the same when I have a product with stolen code.
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That is hypocrisy on the level of thinking buying drugs is ok but selling them is bad. You can argue about the severity of the behavior, but if you are drawing moral lines in the sand, buyer and seller are always on the same side.
You're arguing movies against drugs. Obviously buying drugs is bad, is downloading movies inherently as bad?
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#285If piracy isn't 'stealing' neither is this, since the original code is still available.
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> The fact that there are terms that you are required to agree and adhere to, OR live without the goods, that is not. Uh, no there aren't. The GPL's requirements only kick in when I try to redistribute : that's why the license is in a file called COPYING. It's not an EULA: you don't need to agree with it to use GPL'd software.
Not technically. GPLs requirements kick in the moment you make a copy for you own use, it's just that there aren't any requirements that apply under those conditions.
But they'd have to take effect right away, otherwise you'd be illegally copying copyrighted software :). It is the GPL license that grants personal use without restriction.
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#287I 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 does the exact opposite of copyright;
No, public domain is the opposite of copyright. The GPL absolutely does give the author rights to dictate how people copy the software -- in fact -- even more so than many other open source licenses.
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They're not stealing, they're disrespecting a license. Breaking into someone's car and riding off isn't stealing, just disrespecting the concept of ownership.
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.
Copyright infringement can also be a criminal offense, in some cases, in the US.
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
right, infringement is not theft, and corporations are not people. Corporations are governments. The corporation you probably thinking of right now is a small private government to run a for profit endeavor. But note that cities are also corporations.
Corporations are not 'people' as in 'natural persons', but they are 'persons', as in 'juridical person' -- as are trusts, estates, and other institutions.
Re: uBlock Origin GPL code being stolen by team behind Honey browser extension
#290I 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.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
FSF address this issue directly. GPL is basically fighting fire with fire.