Thread: [Announce] bleeding-edge wl1251 wifi driver for Maemo Fremantle
View Single Post
woody14619's Avatar
woody14619 is offline woody14619
2011-01-26 , 22:50
Posts: 1,455 | Thanked: 3,309 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Rochester, NY
#305
Originally Posted by WereCatf View Post
But when you pirate something the original owner does not lose anything physical nor does the act incur any monetary loss directly.
Wrong. They do incur a loss, the money that you (and those you distribute it to later) would have paid for it.

Originally Posted by WereCatf View Post
But if you wouldn't buy it anyway then there has been no monetary loss at all.
Wrong again. The fact that you bothered to pirate it means you wanted it. It may be that the value you placed on it was different than what the author asked. But if you acquire it and use it, it clearly has value to you in the fact that you are using it! If you really wouldn't buy it anyway, then you wouldn't have it.

To say otherwise is attempting to alter reality by using twisted (and false) logic. Justifying it to yourself must make it easier to steal. Just like dehumanizing an enemy in combat makes it easier to shoot another human being. That doesn't make killing right, it only makes it easier.

Originally Posted by WereCatf View Post
Note that I am not pro-piracy, I am just pointing out the phallacy of your logics.
My "logics" is not in any way sexual....

The only one using false logic here is you. If you acquire something without paying for it, that the author sought payment or royalty to use or enjoy, it's theft. Period.


Originally Posted by WereCatf View Post
Well, the author of these patches has indeed given such permission: he is patching GPL licensed software and thus it all remains derived works. He cannot distribute binaries legally without also allowing access to the sources _for free_ or else he will be breaking copyright laws.
Yes and no. Read the GPL some time. Like I stated before, if the GPL were that black and white there would be no OVI store, nor would there be an N900 for that matter. What he's doing is quite legal, and legally, he could take action against people using his software without paying for it. It would probably be too cost prohibitive to do however.

Even if he were to use GPL software as his base, on selling it, it doesn't give you the right to pirate it. At most it gives the owner of the GPL rights the right to sue him for using their product to create a derived work and charging for it. That's reality, not the twisted chain of thought you're trying to express here.

Again, read what I'm saying here. Even if what you're saying is 100% true, and the GPL bindings were so strict that he's forced to give it away for free (which it's not), or give you the right to pirate it (which it doesn;t). Burning this bridge costs more than you're getting for it. You've effectively driven away a competent developer for a "free" driver with no support and source code that you yourself probably couldn't patch or maintain if your life depended on it. Is that a win?