Jump to content
mnfesq

Permanently Banned From Tonymacx86

764 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Relying on "unspoken rules" or whatever doesn't sound like a good way to be happy with anything.

 

Our culture is based on unspoken rules. You shouldn't forget that!

 

By the way, in MB's "##### Features-7.0.pdf" file you can find the following sentence:

 

"This tool was created for your personal use and may not be sold or re-distributed without the express written consent of tonymacx86 LLC."

 

It's quite hard to get this in compliance with this term of the GPLv2:

 

"  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the

Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License." 
 

Mieze

Edited by Mieze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

It is obvious they don't comply with the GPL you have to make the source used free available restricting the download of it is clear violation. BTW thanks for the Realtek8111 damn fine driver.

 

It isn't obvious according to the license agreement. Source code must be available to *users* of the software if a modified version is distributed. You can request a copy of the source code to distributed binaries and under the license they're obligated to supply it. It seems unlikely they're distributing a modified version of the driver but under the license they're obligated to provide a copy of the source code used for a distributed binary. 

 

For that matter, Mieze has to make the source code for her modified driver available too, though if you go looking for it you'll eventually find it in her Github repo, though it isn't included in her binary bundle that she releases is it?

 

The other website bundles and distributes work that is covered by the GPL. They probably can create a tool that acts as an installer and they can assert copyright and requirements on that all they want, it doesn't apply to the items licensed under the GPL even if they wanted it to. They would have grounds for complaint if you took their installer and distributed it regardless of what other components were included in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a fallacy, fffee, called tu quoque, usually to establish between two opposing parties a moral equivalence that doesn't absolutely exist. it's not that Voldemort is simply not complying with the GPL, he's doing it with intent to obtain advantages at expense of the developers. He even failed to accredit the developers in at least one iteration of his tools. And than again, that's not all about what is lawful - it's about what's right. Do you really think (perhaps the most important question) that one's deeds being legal means right away they're legitimate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using another fallacy to point mine out was pretty solid, @theconnactic. o/

 

It wasn't my intent to suggest that they're no better than Mieze, and I didn't mean to suggest she was a hypocrite. I was merely trying to illustrate that her desire to have someone contact her or whatever it is that would satisfy her isn't something that I believe she is entitled to or should expect. The only reason I brought up the developer that wrote the driver she used was because they probably didn't get contacted either and I really doubt there is someone at Qualcomm waiting for that call. I don't expect anyone using something I've released to contact me about it unless they were to want a difference license agreement or something (though to be fair I haven't thought about it much because the most interesting things I've released were under the BSD license.)

 

The idea of this being a courtesy that is not really a courtesy because it's expected certainly isn't something I've personally held and I don't think it qualifies as immoral. 

 

I've contacted the other site and asked them where I can download the source code to the GPL'ed binaries they distribute. Has anyone else ever bothered to ask? I'll share whatever response I get, if any.

 

Ninja edit: 

 

 Do you really think (perhaps the most important question) that one's deeds being legal means right away they're legitimate?

 

I don't know if English is your primary language or not, do you want to rephrase the question? Legitimate absolutely means conforming to law, so yes, something being legal means it is absolutely legitimate and vice-versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't my intent to suggest that they're no better than Mieze, and I didn't mean to suggest she was a hypocrite. I was merely trying to illustrate that her desire to have someone contact her or whatever it is that would satisfy her isn't something that I believe she is entitled to or should expect. The only reason I brought up the developer that wrote the driver she used was because they probably didn't get contacted either and I really doubt there is someone at Qualcomm waiting for that call. I don't expect anyone using something I've released to contact me about it unless they were to want a difference license agreement or something (though to be fair I haven't thought about it much because the most interesting things I've released were under the BSD license.)

 

Please read the GPLv2 and you will see that you are wrong. I published the driver under the GPLv2 because the code it is based on was originally published under it. In case you had checked my GitHub repo and the driver's thread you would have easily noticed that I comply with the terms of the GPLv2 which is something they don't, and that's why I'm angry.

 

Mieze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, dictionaries, dictionaries. :D

 

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legitimate:

 

1

a :  lawfully begotten; specifically :  born in wedlock
b :  having full filial rights and obligations by birth
2
:  being exactly as purposed :  neither spurious nor false
3
a :  accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements
b :  ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right
4
:  conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards
5
:  relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy
 
 
So yes, something can be "legitimate" (legal in form) and not "legitimate" (because it fails to comply with recognised ethical principles and accepted ethical rules and standards) at the same time. An accessory and annoying consequence of the fact one word has a broader sense than the other, I think... ?
 
But yes, I might as well rephrase it for the sake of clarity. :D Am I right to state that the only legitimacy you really care here is the formal (legal) one? Waiting for your answer, and  also that you point out where's the fallacy in my previous anwser: stating that there was one is and showing nothing is, huh, saying you saw UFOs but showing no pics, heheheh....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please read the GPLv2 and you will see that you are wrong. I published the driver under the GPLv2 because the code it is based on was originally published under it. In case you had checked my GitHub repo and the driver's thread you would have easily noticed that I comply with the terms of the GPLv2 which is something they don't, and that's why I'm angry.

 

Mieze

I've read the GPL, which is precisely why I questioned the "morality" argument when your rationale was that they didn't contact you before distributing binaries of your extension and that they weren't breaking the law but they were immoral.

 

Now you're saying that your opinion is that they are actually breaking the law by violating the license. I think that's a better thing to get upset about because it is measurable and actionable rather than sour grapes about not being asked if they could do something they are entitled to do anyway (in accordance with the GPL).

 

That's it.

 

I am curious if InsanelyMac is in compliance given that you upload and they distribute a binary and not the source of the driver you modified. TM doesn't have a registered agent for Copyright/DMCA but I don't know if this website is in compliance either. Someone could demand it be taken down and be entitled to damages if they didn't comply.

 

I don't know what the laws are regarding hobbiest developers that use third parties to distribute licensed software.

Ah, dictionaries, dictionaries. :D

 

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legitimate:

 

Waiting for your answer, and also that you point out where's the fallacy in my previous anwser: stating that there was one is and showing nothing is, huh, saying you saw UFOs but showing no pics, heheheh....

I will make a note to revisit and answer you, I am using the mobile version of this site and the text editor is pretty weak sauce.

 

The easy one to answer is that by calling someone Voldemort or whatever that you're engaging in ad hominem! I thought it was intentional ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the GPL, which is precisely why I questioned the "morality" argument when your rationale was that they didn't contact you before distributing binaries of your extension and that they weren't breaking the law but they were immoral.

 

Now you're saying that your opinion is that they are actually breaking the law by violating the license. I think that's a better thing to get upset about because it is measurable and actionable rather than sour grapes about not being asked if they could do something they are entitled to do anyway (in accordance with the GPL).

 

That's it.

 

I am curious if InsanelyMac is in compliance given that you upload and they distribute a binary and not the source of the driver you modified. TM doesn't have a registered agent for Copyright/DMCA but I don't know if this website is in compliance either. Someone could demand it be taken down and be entitled to damages if they didn't comply.

 

I don't know what the laws are regarding hobbiest developers that use third parties to distribute licensed software.

 

You have read it? Really? Either you are lying or you haven't understood the text? Anyway I can't take you serious because you don't know what you are talking about. Or are you making false accusations to insanelymac.com and me just in order to offend me?

 

Mieze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Our culture is based on unspoken rules. You shouldn't forget that!

 

By the way, in MB's "##### Features-7.0.pdf" file you can find the following sentence:

 

"This tool was created for your personal use and may not be sold or re-distributed without the express written consent of tonymacx86 LLC."

 

It's quite hard to get this in compliance with this term of the GPLv2:

 

"  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the

Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License." 
 

Mieze

I'm really sorry, but you are reading it wrong. Why? This so called "claim" isn't about your work, or the source code you used in the driver for OS X, or that of the original developer who wrote the code in the first place, but their own tool. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

And please. Grow up and get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really sorry, but you are reading it wrong. Why? This so called "claim" isn't about your work, or the source code you used in the driver for OS X, or that of the original developer who wrote the code in the first place, but their own tool. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

And please. Grow up and get over it.

 

Well, I remember it was you who made false claims about me violating the GPL one and a half years ago and it looks like you haven't understood the GPL yet. I wonder why a person like you is talking such nonsense over and over again? Maybe you have a problem with me? Or is it you who still hasn't managed to grow up?

 

Of course they can do whatever they want with their work but as they included work that was published under the GPL into it, they'll have to publish it under the same conditions and are not allowed to put further restrictions onto it. Even big companies had to learn that the hard way.

 

Mieze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pandora and myhack don't supply sources to the binaries/kexts they include either, in fact I don't know of any package installers that do really

 

It's not required, but you have to mention that the code was published under the GPL and you'll have to tell the recipient where or how he can get the source. Providing it on request is also ok. But it's definitely not ok to prohibit redistribution of the derived work. That's what I wanted to point out.

 

Things become complicated when you create a bundle of GPL and proprietary software. The GPL's rules don't apply to the proprietary parts of it but with regard to the bundle's license you can't take away rights that the GPL granted to recipients because the GPL does not allow for that as it creates a chain of rights that must not be broken. In practice this means that tonymac is allowed to keep the source of his installer secreted, but he can't prohibit the redistribution of the whole bundle as this would break the chain of rights making the bundle illegal.

 

Mieze

Edited by Mieze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I remember it was you who made false claims about me violating the GPL one and a half years ago and it looks like you haven't understood the GPL yet. I wonder why a person like you is talking such nonsense over and over again? Maybe you have a problem with me? Or is it you who still hasn't managed to grow up?

 

Of course they can do whatever they want with their work but as they included work that was published under the GPL into it, they'll have to publish it under the same conditions and are not allowed to put further restrictions onto it. Even big companies had to learn that the hard way.

 

Mieze

Mieze,

 

First of all. I do not have anything against you. Not personally. Nothing more than not liking the constant bickering here, that goes on for ever already, about the (people on) other site. To me that is immature. You have to take this up with the people involved. That is what I do. Confront people when I have an issue with them. Just don't do that behind here, because that is wrong.

 

About that false claim. You are talking nonsense. Not that it matters of course, because it has nothing to do with this "event".

 

Note: Add a link with that so called false claim, as a references, and then go ask the GNU people why I am so involved with the GNU public license since 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mieze,

 

First of all. I do not have anything against you. Not personally. Nothing more than not liking the constant bickering here, that goes on for ever already, about the (people on) other site. To me that is immature. You have to take this up with the people involved. That is what I do. Confront people when I have an issue with them. Just don't do that behind here, because that is wrong.

 

Well, that's exactly what I did. I tried to discuss things with MacMan and the result was that I got banned by him. A lot of people in this thread have a similar story to tell because banning is the way the tonymac crew handles dissent. Basically, it's what this thread is all about.  :lol:

 

With regard to the other thing, it's off-topic so that I suggest we discuss this in private in case you feel any need to go further into it.

 

Mieze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's exactly what I did. I tried to discuss things with MacMan and the result was that I got banned by him. A lot of people in this thread have a similar story to tell because banning is the way the tonymac crew handles dissent. Basically, it's what this thread is all about.  :lol:

 

With regard to the other thing, it's off-topic so that I suggest we discuss this in private in case you feel any need to go further into it.

 

Mieze

Mieze,

 

I don't know what tone that discussion was in, because I was not involved, obviously, but you may as well have been banned for say yelling or bad mouth. Listen. I'm not here to defend or accuse you, nor anybody else for that matter, but I just think that people who have issues with someone else, that they should speak to that person and not drag it into some hate campaign.

 

Look at it this way. You clearly don't like what is going on. And I can relate to that, to a certain degree, but don't let anyone try to lower your standards! Ever! Keep up your chin girl. You are doing an amazing job, and we here all know that. Nobody here is against you. We all love what you are doing, but some of us don't like to read stuff like this. Even if that isn't your fault/mistake. It may hurt what that other person did/does, but again. Keep up your chin… you're too good to be dragged into this. Just continue the great work that you are doing… because we here, we all love it!

 

Respect,

 

Piker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MyHack's not open source. For quite a while now.

That's because tmx86 ripped it off and produced [url="http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/279450-why-insanelymac-does-not-support-tonymacx86/"]#####[/url]. Conti, the developer of that, has quite a long rant on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect some of the strong feels are due to MB being a pretty nice installation package and people wanting some sort of recognition for their contributions above and beyond what is required.

 

It's kind of amazing really that there isn't a Homebrew cask that just yanks the {censored} out of a repository and allows someone to have an alternate installer. That's actually a really fascinating question — has that ever been attempted before?

 

Ninja edit: this is actually me volunteering to PM and help manage a project like that if anyone wanted to give it a whirl. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can tell from reading the last few pages which people have had their hard work ripped off and which people haven't.  Those people that don't know what it's like to see someone else take credit for your hard work just can't understand how upsetting that is.  For me, the Tonymac folks didn't steal my work.  They simply dumped it into the trash.  I was pretty upset by that.  If you haven't had the misfortune of such an experience, consider yourself lucky and stfu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stolen?

 

@theconnactic:

 

4:  conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <a legitimate advertising expenditure> <a legitimate inference>
 
So yes, something can be "legitimate" (legal in form) and not "legitimate" (because it fails to comply with recognised ethical principles and accepted ethical rules and standards) at the same time. An accessory and annoying consequence of the fact one word has a broader sense than the other, I think... ?
 
But yes, I might as well rephrase it for the sake of clarity.  :D Am I right to state that the only legitimacy you really care here is the formal (legal) one?

 

 

Well, obviously I don't think it is immoral to use software that is published and licensed under a permissive license in accordance with that license. I don't think there is even an interesting ethics question in doing so. I think if there is an expectation of something above and beyond that, it shouldn't be something held secret in the hopes that someone would know otherwise.

 

I think I favor the agreed-upon and defined expectations for that reason, and since I generally prefer people have absolute freedom to do what they want with something I give away for free, I generally (possibly never?) don't license anything under the GPL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has to have the last word  :rolleyes:  {rolling my eyes} (or eye) :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×