Open source software against piracy

Sorry, I won't support any organisation that uses mafia style tactics and untruths. Not gonna happen. There are laws against racketeering and extortion in this country.

Alistair, you misunderstand the origin and motives of an organisation like the BSA. They are there to protect nobody's interests but those of the organisations they front for. And those organisations don't want anyone promoting free software, they want their product to sell more.
 
Last edited:
So OSS devs must sign up with the BSA, pay them money which is then used to further the MS & Adobe etc cause. No thank you, go get stuffed.
 
How can we as the Open Source community agree with the BSA when they only protect the interests of people and companies we are against in the first place?????
 
MyWorld said:
How can we as the Open Source community agree with the BSA when they only protect the interests of people and companies we are against in the first place?????
Click to expand...

as the author said, joining will indirectly help open source... imagine we can change the BSA message from "dont do piracy" to "switch to open source"
 
On its website the BSA defines software piracy as "the unauthorised copying or distribution of copyrighted software. This can be done by copying, downloading, sharing, selling, or installing multiple copies onto personal or work computers." The problem with that definition is that these are exactly the ways that open source software is distributed.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. That definition is perfectly acceptable for open source. If the open source software in question is under the GPL then the creation of copies is authorised by the terms of the GPL. So I disagree "the unauthorised copying or distribution of copyrighted software" is NOT how open source software is distributed. Copies of GPL-licensed open source software are all authorised copies by definition. The first sentence of that definition clearly stated that software piracy only happens when a copy is unauthorised and then provides some examples of how unauthorised copies could be created.

Is the author smoking something or am I missing something? It looks like one or the other here.
 
Last edited:
as the author said, joining will indirectly help open source... imagine we can change the BSA message from "dont do piracy" to "switch to open source"
Click to expand...
That is like saying I'll overlook the endangered bald eagle you just shot, but lets safe the rain forest together. Stallman will have a heart attack if he ever reads the OP article.
:D
 
On its website the BSA defines software piracy as "the unauthorised copying or distribution of copyrighted software. This can be done by copying, downloading, sharing, selling, or installing multiple copies onto personal or work computers." The problem with that definition is that these are exactly the ways that open source software is distributed. The fact that I can give a copy of Firefox, Ubuntu or OpenOffice.org to as many people as I like is the exact value proposition of open source software. And if my friends in turn want to make extra copies for friends and family they can.
Click to expand...

See bold bit on why the writer's argument fails.

FAIL article.
 
porchrat said:
I don't get it. That definition is perfectly acceptable for open source. If the open source software in question is under the GPL then the creation of copies is authorised by the terms of the GPL. So I disagree "the unauthorised copying or distribution of copyrighted software" is NOT how open source software is distributed. Copies of GPL-licensed open source software are all authorised copies by definition. The first sentence of that definition clearly stated that software piracy only happens when a copy is unauthorised and then provides some examples of how unauthorised copies could be created.

Is the author smoking something or am I missing something? It looks like one or the other here.
Click to expand...

EtienneK said:
See bold bit on why the writer's argument fails.

FAIL article.
Click to expand...

+1. Exactly what I thought after reading the first few paragraphs. FAIL article.

The BSA isn't against Open Source. They may not like it, but they are not lumping users of Open Source software into the same category is pirates. That would just be insane, pointless, and would have no legal standing.

I burst out laughing when I read the paragraph below which contradicts itself:

On its website the BSA defines software piracy as "the unauthorised copying or distribution of copyrighted software. This can be done by copying, downloading, sharing, selling, or installing multiple copies onto personal or work computers." The problem with that definition is that these are exactly the ways that open source software is distributed. The fact that I can give a copy of Firefox, Ubuntu or OpenOffice.org to as many people as I like is the exact value proposition of open source software. And if my friends in turn want to make extra copies for friends and family they can.
And none of us is violating the copyright or the licence of the software.
Click to expand...
 
But the BSA gets paid by companies like M$, Adobe, etc-etc? Or am I wrong?
 
bla bla bla...

BSA and M$ dont care about piracy in SA anyways.... I know of numerous organizations who report piracy and nothing ever gets done. So go ahead, pirate away. they couldnt care less
 
The BSA uses members' funds to prosecute their legal enforcement program. What open source publisher in his right mind is going to waste their membership fees on supporting MS & Co's anti-piracy litigation? And if by some crazy miracle BSA is transformed and starts to promote [shhh] open source [/shhh], they can kiss their golden geese goodbye. MS & Co will just bugger off with their cash and set up another front organisation.

The BSA exists to be that bully that MS & Co can't afford to openly portray. They serve no other purpose.
 
Another strategy for dealing with BSA, as well as Microsoft SA, would be to ignore their existence entirely - that's what works for me - but I also run Linux and F+OSS so my conscience is clear either way...
 
Incorrect

On its website the BSA defines software piracy as "the unauthorised copying or distribution of copyrighted software.
Click to expand...

these are exactly the ways that open source software is distributed.
Click to expand...

EXCUSE ME!?!

The downloading of open source software is AUTHORIZED by the license conditions.
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html

The BSA has absolutely no mandate to operate in the open source sphere.
 
So, what? They just so happened to forget about the 'Open Source' part right?
 
So, to diminish piracy, the BSA is going to pour millions of dollahs into Open Source initiatives?
No?

Well then, show them the door.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X