VX30 Ad-Stats source download
It's worth clearing something that came up in my inbox regarding the last post before we get to the juicy parts below: Just because someone is selling something with GPL code, it doesn't mean they also have to offer the source files for everyone to download, but they do have to make it available for no more than a nominal fee to those they distribute it to. Usually, that fee is nonexistent.
By incorporating GPL'd code, the software becomes a derivative work, and when they distribute it they are binding themselves to the terms of the license the code they're using was released under.
This means that if they distribute to you a copy of VX30 in any form, and it contains GPL'd code, they must also make the source available to you for a nominal fee. If they are selling a product, and someone purchases it, that person has just had the software distributed to them and is now entitled to the source.
The reason the author of phpAdsNew has a problem with VX30 Ad-Stats and MXS is that they're claiming there's no GPL'd code in their VX30 products, and as you can see for yourself in a moment it would appear they've not only taken code from phpAdsNew and incorporated it into their product, they've stripped out all of the author's original copyright notices in the process.
I'm sure you can understand his anger.
Now, VX30 Ad-Stats is sold both on its own, or as part of a suite which also includes VX30 Live and VX30 Encoder. They've distributed many of the various VX30 products as trial and demo versions for people to use, and if there's GPL'd code in those anyone who received it from them is entitled to ask for the source.
Just because they're selling VX30 Ad-Stats doesn't mean they necessarily have to make the source available for download by just anyone. They haven't distributed anything to you unless you've purchased the software from them, or at least I'm unaware of any other way they're distributing VX30 Ad-Stats. However, if you purchase the software from them, they're distributing it to you, and you're entitled to the source.
Here's the rub: Once someone has the source, they're free to do whatever they please with it so long as they abide by the restrictions within the GPL. If someone wanted to then turn around and sell it for half what Maui X-Stream charges, they very well could.
They could even take that software and distribute it to anyone who wanted it, which is what we're going to do here:
- VX30 Ad-Stats Download (2.7 MB)
It was certainly helpful that they'd left the actual GNU license file in the directory. Someone would generally be free to take whatever they chose to from the VX30 Ad-Stats source and incorporate it into any project which had a GPL-compatible license, or even create a new project from it, although it doesn't solve the problem of the stripped copyright notices.
For comparative purposes, you might want to take a look at a recent version of the phpAdsNew source:
- phpAdsNew 2.0.4 pr2 (924 K)
My impression is the source above is newer than what VX30 Ad-Stats is using, but if you compare the above Ad-Stats source to the phpAdsNew source it's pretty clear it's a derivative work even if all of the original copyright notices have been removed. Changing a function name from phpAds_getBannerTemplate to AdStats_getBannerTemplate isn't exactly cloak and dagger.
Posted by drunkenbatmanMay 18, 2005, at 11:47 PM
Comments (42)
Posted by: Cap'n Hector at May 19, 2005 12:06 AM
Note to self:
New business plan:
1 - Rip off popular OSS software
2 - Bribe DB to say it's cool
3 - $$$
Posted by: Nicc at May 19, 2005 12:55 AM
HA!
I love it! :)
Posted by: Mindflayer at May 19, 2005 01:20 AM
ANNOUNCED TODAY:
I am selling WY40 adStatistics, a variation of VX30, under the GPL license. I will sell it to you for $50 a seat.
Thanks!
Posted by: at May 19, 2005 01:39 AM
Yeah, by comparing the files (I'm looking at banner-delete.php in both) its clearly been taken from phpadsnew. Why is Maui X-Stream doing this to themselves?
Posted by: Fredrik at May 19, 2005 02:53 AM
Sweet somebody, that put one big smile on my face. Is there anyone out there who could possibly have any sympathy for what Maui X-Stream have done (and continue to do)? Didn't think so ...
Keep it coming, you rock!
Posted by: LD at May 19, 2005 03:32 AM
I just don't understand why they continue to deny they have GPL code when they also say they use GPL code.
Chewbacca defense, it does not make sense!
Posted by: MACC at May 19, 2005 07:05 AM
After contributing what I could to bring this
companies follies to more of a open light
I felt like I had to stay in the shower for at least 2 days Just to wipe off the scum.
Keep up the work DB.
Keep serving up the spirits.
Posted by: David Magda at May 19, 2005 07:22 AM
They don't have to give you the source for a nomial fee.
They have to give you the source -- either for free, or for a nomial fee.
There's a subtle differentce between the two that is missed the way you worded it. At the end of the day the source must be provided to those who the derivative work is distributed to -- free or not is irrelevant.
Posted by: Skatch at May 19, 2005 07:50 AM
I didn't realise that if you distribute something based upon GPL'ed code, that you only need to make the source available to those you distribute it to. I assumed you also had to make it available to the authors of the original code. Is this not the case because it could lead to a lot of complication in trying to figure out who you are obliged to make the code available to (i.e. in software where code has been contributed from many different authors/projects)?
Seems like there is the potential for abuse from large enterprises selling multi-thousand dollar pieces of software based upon GPL code. The authors of the original code wouldn't have access to it, and there are many possible reasons why the purchasers of the software would have no interest in making the source available for free to others.
Posted by: klimas at May 19, 2005 08:22 AM
Oh damn, it's on now.
I think this incident is an interesting data point on the whole bloggers vs. journalists debate... I guess the closest antecedent in the print world was the Pentagon Papers, which obviously were a bit more serious than this GPL violation stuff. Most times journalists aren't quite so... active.
Posted by: Matt at May 19, 2005 08:48 AM
How many of us are GEICO customers? I'll admit it, I am ... Those who are I encourage you to send them a letter ... here's mine:
As a software developer and a GEICO customer, I was disappointed to learn that you are using VX30 video-streaming technology on your website. The company that created and sold you VX30 is far from reputable. The have an established record of selling open-source software projects as their own proprietary products. This is in violation of the copyrights of the original projects. In addition to VX30, there was the now defunct CherryOS product. For more information please see:
http://www.spymac.com/news/index.php?contentid=2448
http://www.publish.com/article2/0,1759,1815060,00.asp
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/05/02/2119208.shtml?tid=117&tid=188&tid=17
http://www.tuaw.com/2005/05/16/maui-x-stream-threatens-to-sue-drunkenblog/
Posted by: Matt at May 19, 2005 08:51 AM
I never usually laugh out loud when using the computer, but these two lines got me,
"They could even take that software and distribute it to anyone who wanted it, which is what we're going to do here"
"It was certainly helpful that they'd left the actual GNU license file in the directory"
Good stuff. I especially like the fact that they accidentally admitted they'd taken the code while at the same time posted to their website that they haven't. Inter-company communication doesn't seem to be all that good, then.
Matt
Posted by: Pompous Guy at May 19, 2005 10:36 AM
Skatch, that's exactly right. If BigCo forks some GPL project and sells copies for $50,000, they are not obliged to give their changes to the original authors. They are only obliged to make the source available to the folks to whom they have distributed the software, and they are obliged to give them all the rights outlined in the GPL. That's the whole point. As a user (even if you are BigCo), you may keep your changes private.
The prominent inclusion of the GPL in this source code may indicate that the actual programmers involved in the project did not intend to violate the terms of the license.
Due to the whole "forgiveness" angle of the GPL that came up with trolltech and Qt, MXS may no longer be able to distribute their product, even under the GPL: If they have violated the terms of the GNU Public License, then they lose all the rights confered by it, and they must be explicitly granted a new license by... damn. I forget who. Either the copyright holder or another GPL licensee.
Anyway. Awesome that the source still has the GPL. Even if MXS were violating the copyright of some GPLed software, their software would not necessarily GPLed. They'd just be breaking the law. In order for their source to be licensed under the GPL, they'd have to clearly mark it as such. And shit: they did.
Posted by: Andy at May 19, 2005 12:06 PM
Ok, I'm not going ask where the source came from, but is there any way (as in legally waterproof) to prove the whole zip package is legit?
This would be for two reasons: that it's ok to distribute it; and that it can legitimately be used to verify GPL non-compliance.
Just because the GPL license is in the zip doesn't necessarily mean Maui-X put it there, unless a sterile path from them can be proven. They could claim their source files were stolen and somebody added the GPL to the zip.
Posted by: Mohatmas at May 19, 2005 12:39 PM
Just because the GPL license is in the zip doesn't necessarily mean Maui-X put it there, unless a sterile path from them can be proven. They could claim their source files were stolen and somebody added the GPL to the zip.
They wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they said that when the GPL license in the zip file is in the same place it is at in their live and installed version of Ad-Stats running on their servers. :-)
Posted by: Pompous Guy at May 19, 2005 12:58 PM
Andy, Mohatmas: No need. Linky: VX30 Adstats is GPLed.
Posted by: J Osborne at May 20, 2005 01:49 PM
Skatch writes:
Seems like there is the potential for abuse from large enterprises selling multi-thousand dollar pieces of software based upon GPL code. The authors of the original code wouldn't have access to it, and there are many possible reasons why the purchasers of the software would have no interest in making the source available for free to others.
Sure, there is some potential. It isn't that large though. If you have a product that is way too costly for a person to buy just because they want to free it, it is clearly costly enough that a company would want to buy it, get the source for themselves, and sell it at a new lower price (i.e. half) to suck up a bunch of "free" money until the bottom dropped out of the market. If this new lower price is still too high for anyone to want to buy it to free it, well some other company will come along and decide they want "free" money too, and result in a lower price. Lather, rinse, repeat. Until the $50,000 package is $30 and someone can buy it just to free it.
Plus anyone who bought the $50,000 package might free it just by distributing it to a consultant. Maybe even on purpose if they wanted to start getting support from a 3rd party (if the original company wanted too much, or dragged their feet about implementing a desired feature, or...)
Yes, that would be kind of irritating, but it isn't too bad. Now look at it from the other angle. BigCo wants to take gcc and modify it to do something new (a new language, or support a new CPU, or whatever). If the GPL terms say "you have to give it to all your customers under the following terms..." that isn't so hard, BigCo knows who it's customers are. If the GPL terms said "find all the gcc copyright holders, which is anyone that ever submitted a patch (or the holders of their estate) and failed to assign the copyright to the FSF (i.e. 98% of them) and give them the source" then BigCo's lawyers would go nuts. "How do we find all these people?" "We can't just put it on our web page, someone could argue that they were never told" "Even if the 'never told' bit didn't fly in court...after an expensive battle...we would be obligated to make that version available forever!"
So there is a balancing act (since the purpose of the GPL is to get places like BigCo to start using GPLed software so eventually all the world's software will be source code available to any coder that wants to hack on it).
Posted by: Evan Schoenberg at May 20, 2005 05:42 PM
Dude, I took a break from vacation in NY to do some geeking and decided to see if you had anything new up... this made me laugh out loud. Brilliant! I'm sure you'll hear more about it in the Maui X-treme [sic] lawsuit, but they haven't a leg to stand on.
Posted by: Chris at May 20, 2005 05:43 PM
Just a note to "J Osborne". Some people just don't like the FSF. It's not that they failed to assign the copyright, it's that they never planned to do it in the first place.
Posted by: ignac at May 22, 2005 01:03 PM
From reading all the comments, I'm still
confused on how the GPL can not be abused
for server side software - that is, for
software that is NEVER distributed to customers.
Is there anything to prevent BadCompany.com
from taking GPL'd software, only using it in
server side applications and selling it to
make a fortune?
For example, in the case of phpAdsNew,
if BadCompany.com did NOT install it on
customer's servers, but instead ran a
100% ASP model, my understanding is that
they are not violating the GPL (?)
Also, what if BadCompany.com made every
customer who wanted the source sign an agreement
saying they could not distribute the source
once received?
Just trying to understand protections in
place to ensure peoples good-will and
hard work aren't taken advantage of.
Posted by: drunkenbatman at May 22, 2005 06:50 PM
Is there anything to prevent BadCompany.com from taking GPL'd software, only using it in server side applications and selling it to make a fortune?
Not that I'm aware of. The GPL is a very smart piece of legalese, but its goals don't line up in that way. Most the the OSS licenses are actually very remarkable in how they push things towards their goals -- they're forward thinking -- but they aren't inane.
For example, in the case of phpAdsNew, if BadCompany.com did NOT install it on customer's servers, but instead ran a 100% ASP model, my understanding is that they are not violating the GPL (?)
It's my understanding that as long as you keep it in-house, even offering it as a 'service', you're fine. It's not a 'bad' thing really in terms of some of the goals of the GPL. If someone wants to keep something 'in-house' and isn't distributing, it doesn't harm what is already out there.
Of course, long-term, this can start to really add up. Any time a new release of whatever they are incorporating comes out, they have to suck it in and integrate it with what they've done. If there's a security problem, they have to back-patch, etc. In terms of cost, a company doing this will find they're actually usually better off trying to get their changes into the source rather than just sucking from it. And of course many licenses take into account doing this versus lying about what you're doing, or hiding the origins of something.
Also, what if BadCompany.com made every customer who wanted the source sign an agreement saying they could not distribute the source once received?
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really say but I can guess logically. If this occurred, someone could well be considered 'under contract' to not distribute the source, which is theoretically OK because you aren't bound to distribute the source you're given, only if you want to distribute it yourself. Of course the flip side to this is whomever is making them sign the contract 'not to distribute' has just lost all rights to distribute the source themselves by by imposing non-GPL-compliant terms to the license, which violates the terms of the license granted to them.
Just trying to understand protections in place to ensure peoples good-will and hard work aren't taken advantage of.
There's a ton of foresight in the GPL and BSD licenses and such, but well, they're made to stand up in court and as such are legalese, and as such are confusing. :)
Posted by: eXodus at May 22, 2005 07:37 PM
They shouldn't be able to offer such a contract to begin with. Section 6 of the GPL clearly states "You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", which is exactly what such an agreement would do. As DB said, they would lose the rights to distribute. A contract that breaks any law by its very nature couldn't possibly be legally binding, could it? However, if it did pull through somehow, it looks like Section 7 would enforce the terms of the contract.
Posted by: Nick at May 23, 2005 06:33 AM
Hahah Brillent.
Ive just looked at both versions of the code and yup.......they are BLATENTLY the same, i mean come on.....even the comments are EXACTLY the same..... variable names are the same, the way comments are done are the same.
Hes how they made it....find "phpAds" ..replace ..."AdStats" ...done.
Nick
Posted by: Rus at May 23, 2005 07:15 AM
I think this incident is an interesting data point on the whole bloggers vs. journalists debate... I guess the closest antecedent in the print world was the Pentagon Papers, which obviously were a bit more serious than this GPL violation stuff. Most times journalists aren't quite so... active.
The difference here is Drunkenblog is reporting a consumer awareness tip and expose of a crooked company. In the case of Apple vs Think Secret, PowerPage, and AppleInsider - there was no misdeed NOR is the information free speech or publicly valuable information - they are business plans acquired through illegal means that break the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Furthermore, the author here is NOT soliciting for anyone to break a non disclosure whereas Think Secret's author specifically solicits for it on every page on the site:
http://www.thinksecret.com/images/got-dirt-.gif
Posted by: m at May 23, 2005 07:27 AM
To anwser ignac, Badcompany.com can have every customer signing an agreement so that they don't distribute the GPL code. It's what's happening everyday in console developpement world. Most of the toolchains are based on GCC, but people using them signed NDAs with Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Codewarrior or SN Systems so they can't redistribute the GPLed source code.
Posted by: at May 23, 2005 07:41 AM
If I were GEICO, and one of my vendors was pulling these stunts, I would be PISSED.
Posted by: David Nesting at May 23, 2005 08:26 AM
Warning: You may be infringing copyright yourself! If they claim they did not release their own software under the GPL, then /any of their own modifications are not released under the GPL/. When you release software that contains GPLed code, the GPL does not /automatically/ infect your changes.
If they are incorporating GPLed software into their own product and not abiding by the GPL, they are infringing the copyrights of the copyright holders of that GPLed software. But that doesn't mean you can turn around and act like they did release under the GPL. Their own modifications are still copyrighted by them, and until THEY take the step to release their modifications under the GPL, they are NOT released, and unauthorized reproduction or distribution is STILL forbidden.
So sure, take them to court. But be prepared if they decide to make a claim against you too.
Posted by: teshemenonalicoti at May 23, 2005 08:31 AM
"Warning: You may be infringing copyright yourself! If they claim they did not release their own software under the GPL, then /any of their own modifications are not released under the GPL/. When you release software that contains GPLed code, the GPL does not /automatically/ infect your changes."
RTFA and the linked article and the trackback. MXS admits it is based on phpadsnew. They include the GPL license in their distribution (this was found on the live web server on their site) they were just violating the terms.
Posted by: Me at May 23, 2005 09:02 AM
MXS is terrible! Copying GPL code and not releasing your changes would be like someone downloading an mp3 song or a movie they didn't buy! This is terrible!
:)
Posted by: DikuStealing at May 23, 2005 09:44 AM
The issue seen in this blog isn't the only proof of someone stealing copyrighted code then turning around and using it for commercial gain. Take Medievia for example, an online text-based game using the Diku codebase for commercial means. Here's the kicker though. Since the original Diku team is from outside the US, no one will make a stand against Medievia and just sue the hell out of them for using the code illegally.
Websites:
http://520006811875-0001.bei.t-online.de/med.html
http://slithytoves.sytes.net/~kurt/Medievia.html
http://slithytoves.sytes.net/~kurt/mud/MERCLicense.html
http://slithytoves.sytes.net/~kurt/mud/DIKULicense.html
So hopefully someone w/ a legal background will see this and put an end to another proof site of the illegal madness going on.
Posted by: Tony at May 23, 2005 09:51 AM
Someone above says that people are not automatically bound by the gpl in derivative works - this is untrue. If you take say in this case a php file that has been gpled and alter it, and then distribute it in some funky encrypted way, you must also distribute the code as source so that purchaser can also use it and alter it under the gpl. If you don't agree to these terms, you can contact the copyright holder and get a different license from them.
Posted by: at May 23, 2005 10:28 AM
this companies behavior just gets worse and worse
Posted by: Jeroen van Iddekinge at May 23, 2005 11:30 AM
Please look at 'browser-detect.php"
//
// SourceForge: Breaking Down the Barriers to Open Source Development
// Copyright 1999-2000 (c) The SourceForge Crew
// http://sourceforge.net
//
// $Id: browser-detect.php,v 1.1 2004/10/28 23:22:28 administrator Exp $
I dunno is SF is gpl'ed. But this shows that they borrowed some stuf from others
Posted by: Anon at May 23, 2005 03:48 PM
Or you could just use off the shelf, proprietary, secure, functional code developed with focus and a plan rather than the fratricidal, open, poorly coded, and usually poorly supported GPL crap... just a thought.
Posted by: at May 23, 2005 04:03 PM
DB, thanks. I've been following avidly for weeks. You're a champ. Great work. Keep it up, I've nothing to say against.
Posted by: ignac at May 23, 2005 10:13 PM
>> ...as long as you keep it in-house, even offering it as a 'service', you're fine.
>> ...Most of the toolchains are based on GCC, but people using them signed NDAs with Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Codewarrior or SN Systems so they can't redistribute the GPLed source code.
These facts are extremelly disturbing. Enough to make me never use the GPL license again to release source code. To think that someone could simply slap GPL code on a server, profit from it, and redistrubute nothing back to the community makes me sick. I appreciate the patching and back-porting issues, but I don't find these to be nearly harsh enough deterrents. Further, nowadays practically everything is running server-side and this will only increase to encompass all business apps.
Most disturbing is that there aren't any monetary repercusions for violating GPL. Why would BadCompany.com bother developing their own widget library when they could use readily available GPL software? In the rare chance that they get caught, the WORST case would be that they just swap it with another version and say 'oops'.
Looks like this is exactly what is going to happen to VX30...
Posted by: Ac0rn at May 24, 2005 07:12 PM
What are these people thinking, I can't understand how they think they can be so blatent.
Posted by: at May 26, 2005 10:46 AM
May 2005 08:22:29 -0700
To: mattmorg55@yahoo.com
Subject: OT20050519_0000000525 MT20050519_0000001636 [no subject]
Date: Thu 26 May 2005 11:26:50 EDT
Dear Mr Morgan,
Thank you for expressing your concern over our use of VX30 for
video presentations on our Web site. At GEICO, we believe strongly
in operating with the highest ethical standards, and expect nothing
less from our vendors. We are looking into this situation and
will take appropriate action at the conclusion of that review.
Posted by: Matt at May 26, 2005 10:47 AM
Subject: OT20050519_0000000525 MT20050519_0000001636 [no subject]
Date: Thu 26 May 2005 11:26:50 EDT
Dear Mr Morgan,
Thank you for expressing your concern over our use of VX30 for
video presentations on our Web site. At GEICO, we believe strongly
in operating with the highest ethical standards, and expect nothing
less from our vendors. We are looking into this situation and
will take appropriate action at the conclusion of that review.
Posted by: DougHnut at June 2, 2005 02:19 PM
http://gpl-violations.org/news.html
Possibly you may want to forward all your information on VX30 to the above website...
Posted by: Torsten at July 27, 2005 06:57 AM
Maui X-Stream has changed the web page. Now it says: "VX30 Ad-Stats (adapted from phpAdsNew) is an invaluable reporting tool that allows you to collect data on your video's presentation on the web."
See http://www.mxsinc.com/pages.php?cid=MDEwMDA1
You rock.
Remind me not to piss you off :)