This post is dedicated to Gianfranco Ureta for giving me back a guilty pleasure that I have not felt since the last time I used Windows on my machine, despite feeling it in a different way. Pleasure that I show you in this image.
Let's shout as alive and third world that we are: WE WOULD LOVE NOT TO HAVE TO PAY FORTUNES TO BE ABLE TO USE SOFTWARE. If there is an unofficial way to be able to access full software (without any missing functionality) for free (or at a very low price IN THE WORST CASE), we would like to take advantage of it. On the internet it can be obtained from a Windows 8 complete with medicine to deactivate the WAT even the serial for a freeware program that with a space quota, can be extended to something better. And all that for free. Already this blog has faced repeatedly the situation of the piracy and the importance of promoting free software as a way to combat it. But we must ask ourselves …… Can free software be pirated?
Short answer: YES.
Long answer: It depends on the license. Piracy if you think about it, actually refers to violate the license. We all associate it with copying, sharing, downloading, reselling, etc. but that's because the license used is restrictive. If the software is free, all of those things are perfectly legal and therefore it makes no sense to refer to them as piracy. So pirating free software goes another way, it happens by not respecting its license. An example: we all know the GPL and we know what it cannot be done (create proprietary forks, use its libraries in proprietary programs, run it on machines protected by DRM, etc). All those things they are piracy for the GPL.
The most obvious example? Rxart Desktop. The first distro 100% exclusive of GNU / Linux. Stallman would dedicate his worst insults to PixartArgentina for grabbing Debian, filling it with proprietary programs and do not release code or documentation. Ubuntu is not so bad because at least it releases its code …… .or at least that's what they tell us.
But not only were there real cases, there were rape trials. In 2007, the first lawsuit for violation of the GPL was made when it was discovered that Busybox was used in firmware for embedded devices. Monsoon Multimedia had to release the code they used and pay compensation.
But like I said before, it depends on the license. The closer the license gets to the public domain, the harder it is to violate. The MIT and the two-clause BSD can only be violated if a copy of the license is not included in the software, that is, by making it public domain (out of stupidity or bad temper). The only license that is impossible to violate is the "Do What the Fuck You Want Public License", whose only article says "You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO", and that includes doing nothing.
And here ends my dissertation on piracy and free software. I hope you liked it. I started doing procedures to get an international debit card, so I can use PayPal and finally collaborate not only with this site but with several other projects of interest to me.
And what does Sublime Text have to do with pirating FREE software? As I recall, that program has a free version, but it is not free.
The article is about piracy and is almost always about proprietary software like Sublime Text.
Sublime Text is really nagware, it is freeware that every two by three annoys you asking you to buy the full version. Such as WinRAR, WinZIP and some antivirus.
I think that it would not be wrong to buy the Sublime Text 2 license to use it at Full, to see it as a donation only and not as a license purchase, since said code editor is worth it for its benefits and extensive characteristics.
Regards!
I think you would learn to use GNU Emacs. It's the coolest thing I've seen so far.
In Linux it is much easier to hack than in Windows itself, an example of that is sublime text is cracked with a simple command where hexadecimal values change, I remember that I saw it in a piracy forum.
Yes, I also thought about that, but apparently it is not hacking, because, although it is not clear the method you used to get an application, which is originally paid, for free, it is still free software and they cannot tell you nothing for its possession, since the source code can be grabbed by anyone and do whatever they want with it, except what the post says, that is, turn it into proprietary code. Therefore, it is not very profitable to charge for free applications, instead, many programs live on donations and a community.
Hack?
What is that?
The MikroTik Router OS is also proprietary software made with GNU / Linux.
That is very true, there are cases that are rumored that part of the code of some proprietary software has some free code, but since its code is closed, an audit could not be made so no more clear. But it is said that even MS pirates Free Software.
Use modified BSD license and it will be much more difficult for them to pirate your software, you have to be very careful not to put a copy of the xD license
An example of this could you cite please?
Very good article. But a little detail that is more about writing: You don't say "there were", you say "there were." This error is twice in a row in the article. Accents don't matter to me on the web anymore, but the verb "haber" still deserves my respect.
corrected
In fact if accents matter, and Diazepan should correct xD
I just discovered that the Argentine OLPCs bring Rxart.
All of my WHY.
So ... Free software is not free
It is not that free software is not so free, but that free software by nature gives you the advantage of editing it from the source code. If you do not publish the modification that you make to the source code, then you are against the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
But if you don't like that license, then use the BSD or Apache license, both of which allow you to reserve the right not to publish your modifications / forks to the source code, thus allowing you to make proprietary forks.
If a license does not allow you to close the code then that license is not 100% free. That's what freedom friend is all about. The unfortunate thing is that no one knows what Freedom really is.
"I would not like any paradise where you do not have the right to prefer hell"
No. The freedom to close the code is not included in the 4 freedoms of free software, nor is the prohibition to close the code.
I agree with you, although that last point has been controversial since the GPL emerged (although there is also a more permissive version, but it does not condition you to keep your source code open).
What a blowjob you have said ... it's like saying:
"If I do not have the freedom to murder other people, there is no absolute freedom."
He's right in what he says, I opened my mind a little more
Looking at it from your point of view, you are partly right. Actually in practice you are free to do whatever you want and hack it as the article says. The consequences are there and you are free to do what you want. But the code is not 100% free in theory, for the same reason that the laws of the states of the world do not give you the freedom to kill another person as a colleague has told you. Simply the fact that something has a license, or pure laws exist to take away the freedom of those who do not know how to look out for others, because freedom is a great power that comes with great responsibility, and everyone is not enough Responsible to respect others.
Your freedom ends where that of others begins, do not forget it.
Oh my god, here it goes again: facepalm:
It is free in one sense only, in the sense that it is against proprietary software and everything to do with it, Stallman made that clear several times. So, this isn't exactly free will, it's free as long as you don't want to make proprietary software with it and other things.
Luckily not anymore, now they come with Huayra (based on debian) http://www.comunidadhuayra.com.ar/
So violating licenses is pirating? Well, then what will it be? copy organized crime homework?
If there are penalties in schools for copying homework, it is obvious that homework is a private work.
Well your article diazepan!
Regards!
Hacking is like eating pipes, you start with one and don't stop anymore;).
It is best not to hack, obviously anything. Whoever likes Sublime Text should buy it, that the people who programmed it have all the right in the world to eat from their work. And if you don't have money, you do have free alternatives, both on Linux and Windows ...
In short, hacking for personal use is without excuse and hacking for professional use is unforgivable.
I never paid for anything, except for a good amount of pirated games and movies, oh and before I rented movies on blockbuster, that was legal, but the rest of the software was not, all free and many things cracked or with a generic serial, in especially windows games, antivirus and some other program
"You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO"
If you don't do what you want, would you be violating the license? 😉
"We all know the GPL and we know what cannot be done [for example] use its libraries in proprietary programs"
The FSF says that, but it is not entirely clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works