Discussion about SPM / Repo (Split from other topic)

[skeezix]

Look, everyone knows he's just making a downloader and it doesn't need usernames or accounts or anything at all.. he just wants stats, so he doesn't even need names. But he wants them so he can SELECT * GROUP BY username and get a count of hits by user. Which is questionable, but whatever.


Really, in summary, StreaK is just..


1) Having fun, and


2) Trolling.


By this point, he _must_ know he's being goofy, so we must assume that since he jumps from fire into fire into fire, he's doing it on purpose.


ie: Trolling


And he's very good at it, since you can see how much traffic he generates


But from the user perspective.. fine, use his stuff or not, at your own discretion; but be aware.. this is a fellow who does not act 'maturely in the community', and has a demonstrated history of having little tantrums and removing his stuff.. repeatedly, or making rash (but amusing!) decisions. Use at your own risk


Really, should just put a bad 'Use with caution' on his badge, and move along


_This_ is not a big deal, but its the repeated oddities that build a picture of the man and _that_ is the interesting story


So StreaK; I admire your heart, but I'm not touching your stuff with a 0x10 foot pole


jeff


By now he will have removed the 'curl' line from his script/code, and instead just done a getlogin() or the like in the code and put that into his http request direct or something, not somewhere as obvious. Or he'll switch to a binary (non-http) file transfer to make it harder to identify. Wireshark time But do you really want to go through all that work for every one of his releases?

Without the drama, our community would be moving pretty slowly? hrm..


jeff

 

[Caine]

I agree with skeezix. As a user, this is just not worth the effort and risk.

 

[milkshake]

Repo seems to collecting data from anonymous downloads via cookies aswell, [and that be IP / downloads / when / where] and it could be done without registering / accepting repo's policy, ED..

This is true but it doesn't have access to the cookies unless you are on the website since cookies are stored client side, and it only stored the date/time of your last visit so it can determine if there are new apps since your last visit, it does not care who you are, it doesn't know who you are.

 

[double7]

"An EULA that isn't read is not binding."


Is it an ultimate joke, boy? If you dont know law, the laws dont affect you?

No. You are talking about a contract, not a law.


An EULA is no law, it's just a piece of document the editor could write in any stupid stuff he wants. A lot of EULAs fell in front of court, even big companies had to learn that. And they continue to write that stuff in because there are a lot of people who get cowed by that and do what the company wants.

 

[ZXDunny]

You know best, ZXDunny. Especially when you point to "nobody". Did you done some stats about that?

You tell me - you're the expert in collecting marketing data statistics


Edit: Has StreaK thrown his toys out of the pram again? Ah well, he'll be missed, as will his emulators that have awful user-interfaces and fail to run at anything like a playable speed


D.

 

[Wrath Of Khan]

You know best, ZXDunny. Especially when you point to "nobody". Did you done some stats about that?

You tell me - you're the expert in collecting marketing data statistics


Edit: Has StreaK thrown his toys out of the pram again? Ah well, he'll be missed, as will his emulators that have awful user-interfaces and fail to run at anything like a playable speed


D.

I don't think he really throws hissy fits he just pretends to do so in the hope that we will all say streak please come back we need you etc.thenwhen we have been left dangling long enough he returns on his own terms.Mind games pure and simple.

 

[captain_coconut]

I think someone should just create a torrent of all of StreaK's pnds so people can avoid this nonsense. At least people will have a choice on how to get his software and not have to worry about what his proprietary package manager is doing- or if the software is even available for download on a given day.

 

[WizardStan]

Yes, that's a good idea: rebel against questionable security practices by engaging in copyright infringement.

 

[captain_coconut]

Yes, that's a good idea: rebel against questionable security practices by engaging in copyright infringement.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. A torrent should be created for all software (GPL and other such licenses) that allows for redistribution.

 

[ivanovic]

Yes, that's a good idea: rebel against questionable security practices by engaging in copyright infringement.

Oh, this depends! That is: if this is a port of GPL software and someone repackages the binary of the GPL program and uploads it to the repo, this is no copyright infringement *at all*. Since this is one of the things every user has with the GPL, the right to publish the program under the same terms under which the packager/author got them. Another nice part is that everyone how downloaded the program can also ask for code patches in case any changes were done to the code. And if some launcher is directly integrated in the binary this launcher also would become a GPL'ed program (at least as this specific version). Of course the last part is (most likely) not valid in case of the launcher just being some wrapper binary calling the GPL'ed binary via commandline.


But yes, a repackaging of all GPL'ed ports from Streak is completely legal and allowed (copyright and license wise as long as work from Streak which is not under the GPL is removed).

 

[WizardStan]

Oh, this depends! That is: if this is a port of GPL software and someone repackages the binary of the GPL program and uploads it to the repo, this is no copyright infringement *at all*.

No, that isn't what the GPL says. The GPL gives you the right to the source so that you can do what you want with it. It doesn't give you the right to redistribute the precompiled binary. What you can do is, under the GPL, acquire the source code and then rebuild it yourself, and then distribute that binary, but simply distributing someone else's build is not allowed without their permission.

 

[ivanovic]

Oh, this depends! That is: if this is a port of GPL software and someone repackages the binary of the GPL program and uploads it to the repo, this is no copyright infringement *at all*.

No, that isn't what the GPL says. The GPL gives you the right to the source so that you can do what you want with it. It doesn't give you the right to redistribute the precompiled binary. What you can do is, under the GPL, acquire the source code and then rebuild it yourself, and then distribute that binary, but simply distributing someone else's build is not allowed without their permission.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary


The GPL explicitly allows redistribution of binary files, too! In case of the GPLv2.0 have a look at 3.c. It explicitly states:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:


(...)


c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.

So as long as StreaK complies with the GPL in providing sources, a plain repackaging of binaries which were created out of GPL'ed code is perfectly valid and legitimate.

 

[WizardStan]

Hm, I think I stand corrected. Thank you.

 

[jabz]

Ahh fuck he's pulled his releases again. Damn wanted some of his work..

 

[captain_coconut]

Oh, this depends! That is: if this is a port of GPL software and someone repackages the binary of the GPL program and uploads it to the repo, this is no copyright infringement *at all*.

No, that isn't what the GPL says. The GPL gives you the right to the source so that you can do what you want with it. It doesn't give you the right to redistribute the precompiled binary. What you can do is, under the GPL, acquire the source code and then rebuild it yourself, and then distribute that binary, but simply distributing someone else's build is not allowed without their permission.

Lets suppose what you say here is correct (it is not). Wouldn't that make it copyright infringement to make a copy of say an Ubuntu CD for a friend- since you are only redistributing binaries without source?

 

[sebt3]

No, that isn't what the GPL says. The GPL gives you the right to the source so that you can do what you want with it. It doesn't give you the right to redistribute the precompiled binary. What you can do is, under the GPL, acquire the source code and then rebuild it yourself, and then distribute that binary, but simply distributing someone else's build is not allowed without their permission.

Lets suppose what you say here is correct (it is not). Wouldn't that make it copyright infringement to make a copy of say an Ubuntu CD for a friend- since you are only redistributing binaries without source?

The GPL goes even further than that : if you revoke the right to redistribute your binary of a GPLed software then you lose your own licence...

 

[centus]

An interestingly related thing just came up on Engadget:


http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/22/new-privacy-policy-standards-agreed-to-by-worlds-major-app-stor/

 

[Wrath Of Khan]

Ahh fuck he's pulled his releases again. Damn wanted some of his work..

Really? I give up on him.

 

[WizardStan]

Lets suppose what you say here is correct (it is not). Wouldn't that make it copyright infringement to make a copy of say an Ubuntu CD for a friend- since you are only redistributing binaries without source?

No. Why would it? Ubuntu explicitly says "distribute the heck out of this stuff!" Paraphrased, of course. Streak has made no such claim; just the opposite, in fact. My understanding was that binary distribution was separate, and that GPL simply meant you could get the source for a binary you had acquired legally. That's what made commercial GPL software a little more viable in my mind: while anyone could buy the software, recompile the source, and distribute that binary, it was a necessary stumbling block to prevent direct copying of the original. That was my interpretation of section 3. I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like the FAQ clarifies my error.

 

[Ziz]

I don't know, whether this is right or not - in fact I never read the whole GPL License - but I heard, that a program, that really depends on a GPL applications (that means: Without the GPL program it doesn't work or has no "real" function) have to be released under the GPL.


That was the reason the LGPL was desigend. A prorgram realley needed a LGPL Lib was so able to be under another license but GPL. So: Are your sure your starter script doesn't have to be released under the GPL? I mean: Without your ports your scripts are senseless. ;-)


greetings, Ziz