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

#291

Post by belorn » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 1:37 AM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #155

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…

> 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…

We can see with current legal situation around AI learning and data scraping how companies and their lawyers has starting to work around the issue of not having data protected by copyright. The general alternatives to copyright seems to be TOS and contract law, except for Hollywood which went and drafted their own special law.

Downloading software from a server means you need to have access to that server, possible through an account. There is also a fair amount of precedence covering the enforceability of TOS and limitations of server access, especially when a company earn profit on intentionally ignoring them.

Contract law has its own issue, and copyright is generally seen as much easier to understand and enforce, but if contract law can be used to control how software and data is used after a user has downloaded it then it could be used for something like GPL.

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

#292

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 1:40 AM UTC

benjaminl wrote: post #265

tantalor wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know when Honey started stealing affiliate links? Was it after the acquisition?

[flagged]

"Earning money from affiliate links" and "stealing affiliate links" are not the same thing. There is a big range of behaviors here, and they're right at the worst end of it.

I'm surprised by how far they went, not that affiliate links were involved at all.

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

#293

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 1:49 AM UTC

Alex-Programs wrote: post #202

pseudo0 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> as I watched the video all I could think was "what the fuck did you think they were doing?".

Well, not screwing over their partners and customers?

They didn't have to overwrite existing affiliate codes to make lots of money. And the stuff you list in your last sentence is a really big deal.

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

#294

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 1:52 AM UTC

iamacyborg wrote: post #254

freedomben wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No I agree it’s a poor argument when looked at either extreme. I think most folks would likely agree that some taxation is beneficial, albeit not a 100% tax rate, which would be broadly analogous to the argument that copyright shouldn’t exist.

The person you replied to wasn't making the argument that copyright shouldn't exist. Their argument is in line with "some taxation" where it goes into the public domain after a while, and they only (potentially) called extended copyright terms stealing from the public domain.

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

#295

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 1:54 AM UTC

Brian_K_White wrote: post #280

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, absolutely not the commons. If you want a mental metaphor of what the vast body of GPL'ed code is, think of a very, very large multinational corporation. If you want to use their code, you have to join the company. Fortunately for you, all you have to do to join the company is to agree to use the same license for you own code as the company already does. If you agree to that, you are free to use any or all of the…

The body of gpl code is absolutely a commons. I don't know why you imagine otherwise unless you're confused about public domain or something. There is no joining any company or anything remotely like that no matter how hard you try to squint. The single rule in GPL is no more than any other usage-of-commons rule like don't pee in the pool or litter in the park. The park is still free for anyone to use, you just can't…

> The body of gpl code is absolutely a commons

You cannot (re)use any GPL code unless you agree to license your own code under the GPL.

You and I may agree that the terms of the GPL are essentially just a way of protecting the commons. I happen to spend quite a bit of time on HN and elsewhere debunking people who cite Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" precisely because that whole story ignores the fact that real commons have historically been managed with a variety of social and civic techniques.

However, precisely because of this widespread repeating of Hardin's use of the term "commons", I tend to doubt that random mentions on HN of "the commons" actually means "a carefully socially and civically managed resource available to all but notionally protected from abuse". Rather, it does indeed tend to be a synonym for "public domain".

BTW, I've been writing GPL'ed code for more than 35 years, and for the last 25+ years, it has been my full-time self-employed means of making a living.

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

#296

Post by Ukv » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 1:55 AM UTC

benjaminl wrote: post #265

tantalor wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know when Honey started stealing affiliate links? Was it after the acquisition?

[flagged]

People are upset that:

1. Honey makes money through deals with retailers to not offer the best coupon code to the extension's users

2. Honey swaps out the referral code from the blog/video/etc. that actually referred you to the product with their own, even when they didn't find any coupon deal

Merely "Honey makes commissions from our merchant partners" is not at all a "very upfront" description of that behavior. Moreover, many of the people affected by this are reviewers/etc. who have never themselves used Honey so had no particular reason to look into how it works.

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

#297

Post by LiamPowell » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 2:00 AM UTC

benjaminl wrote: post #265

tantalor wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know when Honey started stealing affiliate links? Was it after the acquisition?

[flagged]

They literally advertise this as a feature on their home page in that they give you X% of what they earn from affiliate links. It says a lot about the influencers advertising it if they did not realise that Honey is taking their affiliate revenue while reading an ad that says they do. More realistically, most of them likely did know that this is what Honey does and determined that honey paid more than any lost revenue, but know that saying that would lead to some of this outrage being directed at them. As a bonus, by asking users to uninstall Honey they can have their money from running Honey ads previously and money from their affiliate links too. The only way I can maybe see influencers being unaware of this if if they read an ad that only talked about the coupon feature and they never bothered to even visit the Honey homepage or try it themselves, which would be a pretty bad look for them.

I also think most users that use Honey have to know that this is what it does given that, again, it's an advertised feature. I suspect most people outraged at this are people that never used the tool in the first place.

I certainly think it's a bad product as it defeats the purpose of affiliate links and reduces revenue for anyone using affiliate links for their intended purpose, but I don't think they were misleading anyone about what the product does.

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

#298

Post by BurpIntruder » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 2:01 AM UTC

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…

100% this. Until there is a mechanism to disambiguate between first and last click referrals, it will continue to be an issue.

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

#299

Post by traverseda » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 2:11 AM UTC

drdeca wrote: post #171

traverseda wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sourc…

>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.

For what it's worth that's the camp I'm in as well, I'm just being a bit silly for the sake of argument.

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

#300

Post by Brian_K_White » Fri, Jan 03, 2025, 2:17 AM UTC

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #261

Brian_K_White wrote: post #219

Earlier 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.

Those are the terms, correct. Using the code in pretty much any way you want without redistributing is adhering to those terms.

Why do you try say that means there are no terms?

The terms are ridiculously generous. But there are terms and those are they.