Permanently Banned From Tonymacx86

[mendietinha]

i´m aware of that. i was actually pointing that too.

[Mieze]

In case you checked tonymacx86's Buyer's Guide for october you might have noticed that he added a number of mainboards with Killer NICs to the list of recommended 9 series boards, of course with links to Amazon and Newegg so that he gets a commission when user's buy them through these links. Frankly, I'm not surprised because this was the next logical step after adding my Atheros driver to MultiMonster. Nevertheless it's disgusting and it hurts to get exploited. 

 

Hey tonymac, this song is for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIffEPLD0MU&spfreload=10%20Message%3A%20JSON%20Parse%20error%3A%20Unexpected%20EOF%20(url%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DlIffEPLD0MU)

 

Mieze

[Mirone]

I think they make the hardware in exchange for advertising, 

so that explains the MOD's and ADMIN's had so many PC's.

[SRSR333]

In case you checked tonymacx86's Buyer's Guide for october you might have noticed that he added a number of mainboards with Killer NICs to the list of recommended 9 series boards, of course with links to Amazon and Newegg so that he gets a commission when user's buy them through these links. Frankly, I'm not surprised because this was the next logical step after adding my Atheros driver to MultiMonster. Nevertheless it's disgusting and it hurts to get exploited. 

 

Mieze

I don't know, they have been a lot more appreciative and honouring of others' work nowadays (take a look at the Chimera 4.0 release page). Also, ManyMonster does give credit where it's due, and your handle is listed in the credits, IIRC. Unless he/they didn't explicitly ask for permission to add your kext into #####, in which case your annoyance is partially justified. 

 

They're acting like any profit-seeking company out there, including Apple, whose OS this website is dedicated to. Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying their act, but I suppose it's to be expected from them. About the 'donate' buttons sprinkled all over the site, I've seen several other devs of similar freeware ask for donations too - how else would they compensate for time spent developing the software? It is anyway a goodwill thing, and I haven't donated to any freeware dev besides WinRAR (I'm a teenager with a perennial shortage of cash, so my online expenditures are even more limited - I donated to Rarlabs because I use WinRAR a lot more than any free software out there). 

 

I still hang around their site because RehabMan is almost always at hand to solve problems in the laptop forums; unfortunately, he isn't as active here. By 'active' I mean receiving a response within ten minutes of posting/replying to a post. 

 

P.S. I completely forgot - Mieze, thanks for your driver - I have it installed and it made my Ethernet working. One of these days I'm going to make a giant thank-you post to all the devs who made my hackintosh install both possible and easier.

[Mieze]

I don't know, they have been a lot more appreciative and honouring of others' work nowadays (take a look at the Chimera 4.0 release page). Also, ManyMonster does give credit where it's due, and your handle is listed in the credits, IIRC. Unless he/they didn't explicitly ask for permission to add your kext into #####, in which case your annoyance is partially justified. 

 

They're acting like any profit-seeking company out there, including Apple, whose OS this website is dedicated to. Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying their act, but I suppose it's to be expected from them. About the 'donate' buttons sprinkled all over the site, I've seen several other devs of similar freeware ask for donations too - how else would they compensate for time spent developing the software? It is anyway a goodwill thing, and I haven't donated to any freeware dev besides WinRAR (I'm a teenager with a perennial shortage of cash, so my online expenditures are even more limited - I donated to Rarlabs because I use WinRAR a lot more than any free software out there). 

 

I don't have any problem with profit-seeking companies as long as they are making money with their own products, like Apple does. Apart from this they should show a little decency, but tonymac fails to meet both conditions. He never asked me for permission. Although his actions might be legal, they show complete disregard for morality.

 

Mieze 

[fffeee]

I don't have any problem with profit-seeking companies as long as they are making money with their own products, like Apple does. Apart from this they should show a little decency, but tonymac fails to meet both conditions. He never asked me for permission. Although his actions might be legal, they show complete disregard for morality.

 

Mieze 

 

Since when is using GPL'ed software without asking permission immoral? 

[SRSR333]

Since when is using GPL'ed software without asking permission immoral?

She did mention that what tmx86 was doing was still legal - but it's common courtesy to ask for permission to use something, if you can do so.

[fffeee]

She did mention that what tmx86 was doing was still legal - but it's common courtesy to ask for permission to use something, if you can do so.

 

She already gave permission by licensing it under the GPL. 

[Micky1979]

She already gave permission by licensing it under the GPL. 

 

You miss something:

 

You do not want me on your site, but you want my driver?

 

It 'a thought.....

[Mieze]

Here are some more pieces of  information. I just tried to download a copy of MultiMonster in order to check if they really comply with the GPL and look what I found:

 

 

Obviously they didn't ban me, but crippled my account so that I'm no longer able to download anything at their site. Can someone please send me copy of MultiMonster so that I can take a look at it.

 

Thanks to all users who sent me a copy of MB!

 

Mieze

Edited October 17, 2014 by Mieze

[Kyle F.]

Here are some more pieces of  information. I just tried to download a copy of MultiMonster in order to check if they really comply with the GPL and look what I found:

 

Bildschirmfoto 2014-10-17 um 01.02.21.png

 

Obviously they didn't ban me, but crippled my account so that I'm no longer able to download anything at their site. Can someone please send me copy of MultiMonster so that I can take a look at it.

 

Mieze

What the heck is MultiMonster?

[fffeee]

You miss something:

 

It 'a thought.....

 

I didn't miss that, it's just irrelevant.

 

There is nothing immoral about using open-sourced software in the manner it was licensed. It's a completely disingenuous argument. I don't have strong feelings about the other website or this one, but there is surely a better thing to get worked up about beyond some supposed slight against someone that modified someone else's work and then feels like they're entitled to something without setting that expectation. Relying on "unspoken rules" or whatever doesn't sound like a good way to be happy with anything.

[MacUser2525]

Here are some more pieces of  information. I just tried to download a copy of MultiMonster in order to check if they really comply with the GPL and look what I found:

 

Bildschirmfoto 2014-10-17 um 01.02.21.png

 

Obviously they didn't ban me, but crippled my account so that I'm no longer able to download anything at their site. Can someone please send me copy of MultiMonster so that I can take a look at it.

 

Mieze

 

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.

[Mieze]

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 October 17, 2014 by Mieze

[fffeee]

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.

[theconnactic]

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?

[fffeee]

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.

[Mieze]

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

[theconnactic]

Ah, dictionaries, dictionaries.

 

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.  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....

[fffeee]

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.

 

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

[theconnactic]

No, it was not an ad hominem, it was because I don't make ads for free.

[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.

 

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

[Pike R. Alpha]

 

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.

[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.

 

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

[fffeee]

The only thing they may be doing is not supplying a copy of the source. Maybe nobody has ever asked which is why I did so.