Why are we all not doing this and making loads of money

[Trev]

@redrumloa

Well, Elbox advertises and posts here, and they're apparently in violation of the terms of the GPL, which is, in effect, software piracy. I can't confirm that, though. Has anyone requested source code from Elbox and been ignored and/or denied?

EDIT:

It looks like the link Piru posted, http://elbox.com/download/mediator.zip, is an archive created by Adam Kowalczyk, so in this case, it's both Adam and Elbox that are in violation of the GPL, unless the source code is readily available from Adam.

[Trev]

It's pretty easy to be in violation of the GPL, which is why I'm not a fan. The LGPL is slightly better, but I still prefer a BSD-style open source license. Re: the GPL, publicly distributing a compiled binary, be it the original work or a derivative work, without also making the source code available is copyright infringement under the terms of the GPL. Even statically or dynamically linking with a library licensed under the GPL requires distribution of source code. (That's why the LGPL was created--to allow a closed source application to dynamically link with an open source library.)

[Trev]

Actually, don't. I've pointed out before that such reports require evidence and proof of ownership of the copyrights in question. You open yourself up to legal liability when you make accusations that may prove to be false. eBay does as well when they respond or take action based on those accusations. That's in the US, though. How do other countries handle this sort of thing? International treaties play a role as well.

[Trev]

I meant from the opposite side--the person filing the complaint needs to be the copyright owner. Record companies and software publishers will often attempt to stop the sale of used (and 100% legal) products, but here in the US, the doctrine of first sale typically applies, even for products that are "licensed" and not "sold."

That's beginning to change, though, as online distribution takes hold. It's a great thing for publishers, as they can now control access to their works. I don't know why anyone hasn't challenged that yet by attempting to transfer ownership of a digital download from one party to another. Under current US law, it should be entirely possible and legal to do so, but the companies that provide the content do not provide the means. They also don't provide warranties. Have you ever tried recovering a lost key or damaged bit of DRM from a content distributer? The US, at least, needs change in the area. Consumer, i.e. individual, rights are not being properly represented and protected.

[Trev]

Truly. Pick up Amiga Forever, which is a great package in and of itself (and which I've been using/buying since the first pre-release), and then head on over the Back to the Roots, Cinemaware, or some other authorized distributor and have a ball. Most of the best stuff is freely available these days.