Talk:Acquisition (software)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polished it may be but there are still things that drive me nuts. How about remembering my column widths for each separate search? How about letting me make the column widths for artist, album, etc as wide as I like? Graham 09:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 BitTorrent? 2 "controversy" 3 GPL paragraph 4 Controversy paragraph 5 Is this program legal 6 Controversy paragraph, again 7 What is the point? 8 Paragraph Deletion

[edit] BitTorrent?

I'm not really sure why this is categorized as a BitTorrent client.76.171.7.6 23:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "controversy"

I have restored the last paragraph to the form where it was backed up by a citation. Future edits should try to include ALL points of view, and be backed up by verifiable citations. --Nsevs • Talk 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The longer version is significantly less POV, IMO, and I reverted the changes an anonymous contributor made to revert it (although I forgot to log in before doing so). -Senori 18:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A relevant link: http://groups.sims.berkeley.edu/osdddi/?p=52. I also find it interesting that 24.85.250.101 has repeatedly made very pro-Watanabe edits to this article, while removing information from the DW bio. — Miles←☎ 07:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The new latest edit still isn't NPOV, so I'm going to change it a little. -Senori 15:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I ran into an edit conflict with you, but I'm going to go ahead and make the edit:

Removed from the article: This is, however, a highly biased viewpoint as Acquisition runs and functions in the absence of its Gnutella core (in particular, its BitTorrent features have no dependencies on Gnutella). Acquisition 130.4 automatically redownloads the core if it is deleted; if read access to the core is prevented, Acquisition crashes. This may not be the case for the latest version, but there's no way to download it to find out (the download link on the website leads to a PayPal payment page). — Miles←☎ 16:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and therefore reverted another edit thar reinserted it. -Senori 20:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an obvious flaw in stating that this software is compliant with the GPL in any way: the code downloadable from Dave's site proclaims that it is in "full and total compliance with the LimeWire GPL," which is fallacious on many levels. First of all, there is no such thing as the "LimeWire GPL;" LimeWire uses the GNU GPL. Also, the code downloadable from Dave's site contains no obvious instructions, nor does it compile on its own. This is all in addition to the other arguments used to show that it is in violation of the GPL. Also, the core available from the site is not up to date. Since the program downloads the core automatically if it is missing, this seems to me to be a clear violation of the GPL, in spirit, at the very least. The crippled GPL'd pieces hardly count as a product on their own.

As for acqlite/cabos, I am the person who acquired the code for them, and it was through Dave. However, he no longer offers any of the code which Acquisition now uses (except the aforementioned "core"), so they are not actually based on the same product. If anything, acqlite/cabos should be considered a fork of Acquisition 0.966.

An addendum: From the very same GPL FAQ which is linked to in this article:

"... pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program" (emphasis added).

I leave it to the reader to decide the obvious implications here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.56.215.109 (talk • contribs) 06:52, August 31, 2006 (UTC).

[edit] GPL paragraph

It should be noted that Robin, who is behind "acqlite", did not acquire his source code by any legal means. Rather, it was outright code theft. His desire to interpret the GPL beyond its legal and moral reach is simply a way for him to rationalize illegal copyright infringement and code theft. Robin has also on several occasions made knowingly false statements and fabricated the words of others to attempt to create the illusion of justification. A proven liar with an axe to grind is not what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source nor is someone who steals code really an objective source for this sort of topic.

If simple communication between GPL and non-GPL processes were truly an issue, then Xcode's use of gcc should be as controversial, as the situation is identical. The fact that it is a non-issue suggests that Robin's argument does not hold water and that this "controversy" is a fiction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.223.6 (talk • contribs) 01:29, October 13, 2006 (UTC).

First, do you have any proof of your allegations toward Robin? He, at least, cites some links.

Second, I'm not exactly sure how the Limewire core and the Acquisition GUI interact, since the information available seems contradictory. Could you explain this more clearly? -Senori 02:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The linked article wasn't written by Robin. — Miles (Talk) 02:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy paragraph

User 70.79.11.216 has just reverted my attempt to clean up the controversy paragraph and make it NPOV. The problems with 70.79.11.216's version of this paragraph are (1) it's not NPOV, since it supports the Acquisition author's view, and (2) it is confusingly worded in places (for example, it doesn't make it clear that the GUI is not released under the GPL). Per WP:RV 'do not revert good faith edits' I've unreverted back to my version. I don't want to enter into an edit war, but if my version isn't acceptable, could someone else at least fix the NPOV problem? Epimorph 23:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The "author's view" is the view is supported by the GPL itself and by precedent set countless times by others, including that of Apple Computer. In other words, the "author" is not isolated in his opinion. He is but one person of a large group of people that believe that programs that run as separate processes do not need to be licensed the same way. This is a fundamental view that is written into the GPL and has been accepted and adopted by companies like Apple. The wording of this paragraph needs to reflect this fact. The author is not the aberration here. The aberration is the small group of people who think the GPL needs to be applied beyond its legal bounds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.79.11.216 (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2007

With respect, it's not true that "programs that run as separate processes do not need to be licensed the same way". The GPL FAQ says "if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program"[1]. Are the two parts of Acquisition related closely enough to constitute a single work? You have a view, as do I, but the point is that plenty of people think that Acquisition does violate the GPL, and both sides in the dispute ought to be presented fairly. To quote WP:NPOV: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." -- Epimorph 13:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this program legal

Can you legaly download songs off of this... I'm sure all people want to know if that is true

Prep111 18:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the music on Gnutella is copyrighted by large media companies, and as such can't be legally downloaded or shared. So no, unless you have a special reason for thinking otherwise (eg the artist has released the song under a license which permits filesharing) it's mostly not legal to download songs from Acquisition. Epimorph 08:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I thought, thanks. Prep111 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy paragraph, again

User 70.79.11.216 (talk), I ask you once again not to alter the controversy paragraph to a version which supports a particular POV. As I said above, WP:NPOV requires that 'none of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth'. Your version does not conform to this, which makes it non-NPOV and so unacceptable. Epimorph 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, your editing of the paragraph to suggest that the "author" is alone or isolated in his view is introducing a POV. My version is more neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.79.11.216 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 March 2007.

Fair enough. The new version reads 'Acquisition's supporters argue that this usage is entirely permissible, as the GPL considers piped communication a valid method of separating programs in most cases.' Epimorph 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's still inappropriate. You are phrasing this as if it is a matter of opinion, when it is not. It is a matter of correctness and incorrectness. The GPL is a legal document. There is NO precedent that says that Acquisition's or Apple's use of open source components is incorrect and ample precedent to suggest that it is entirely appropriate. The GPL is written to suggest that Apple and Acquisition are in the clear, and absent any precedent that would suggest otherwise, that is a legal FACT. Some people might bemoan the limits of the GPL, but they are not judges and their opinion does not change legal reality.

I'd also like to suggest that, the mere fact that this "controversy" is written about in this article is a POV. The "controversy" is a generic one, regarding the extent to which the GPL is applicable. Apple is guilty of using many more open source components within closed-source suites of applications, shielded by process boundaries. Why is this "controversy" mentioned only here? I believe that there is no real controversy, it is a fiction designed specifically to add a negative POV to this article. Consequently, the entire paragraph should be removed.

How about "This usage has historically been considered entirely permissable..."? -Senori 06:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems a bit strong to me. After all, the GPL faq says 'if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program'. In some cases, programs separated by piped communication will constitute a single work for the purposes of licensing. Epimorph 09:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any other way to do it; right now, I don't think the evidence (even the Xcode precedent) is enough to definitively say that the method of communication used in Acquisition is not intimate. This way at least makes it clear that the general view is for Acquisition's legality. -Senori 07:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User 70.79.11.216, let me point you to WP:NPOV for a third time. People's views in this case differ, but the role of the article is not to decide who is correct, but to fairly give all views. Wikipedia would be unworkable if everyone with a strong view insisted that their view was the one that wikipedia should support.

This isn't a matter of legal precedent. There hasn't, as far as I'm aware, been a legal cases on this matter (perhaps you could point to one?). The GPL doesn't specify what's meant by 'mere aggregation', and the GPL FAQ says that components connected by pipes can sometimes constitute a single work. It's misleading to claim that Xcode proves that Acquisition is legal, because Xcode isn't Acquisition, and the the issue here is the intimacy of the communication between components. In the view of many people, Acquisition's components are intimately enough related that they ought to both be released under the GPL, while Xcode's aren't. Epimorph 10:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's a matter of precedent. This paragraph is in place to create the illusion of abiguity and the illusion of a controversy. The author has not received any code requests in three years... how can there be a controversy in reality? Isolation and insulation of GPL code by process boundaries is standard practice. Suggesting the presence of a controversy when there is none is spin, and is a point of view.

Even if it is generally forgotten anymore, a historical controversy is still a controversy. -Senori 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It never was a controversy until Wikipedia decided to make it one. Wikipedia should not be inventing reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.79.11.216 (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

It was never a controversy until you decided to start a revert war. Please stop violating WP:3RR so rampantly and deleting the paragraph without any discussion, much less consensus. Deleting information is vandalism.--AgentCDE 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't "information", it's fiction. Writing fiction and calling it reality is far worse than vandalism, it's propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.79.11.216 (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Two wrongs a right do not make. Vandalism is STILL vandalism. I've taken the liberty of alerting the administrators. If you'd actually stop, come up with something resembling proof, and discuss this...--AgentCDE 03:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the point?

What you don't get is this: The LimeWire sources have been modified to make this possible. It is not like LimeWire was originally using Unix pipes or whatever to communicate between the GUI and backend. On the contrary, gdb and gcc have always been console-style applications making it easy to slap a front-end upon it. gcc is not even interactive. Furthermore, a language like Java enforces modularity. Thus, you can almost always easily grab the modules you need from such an application and let those communicate with the rest of your (closed-source) application. In other words, yes, there is a loophole in the GNU GPL, if you consider this practice legal. --82.141.49.154 01:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph Deletion

No consensus does NOT validate ANYTHING. Also, these repeated deletions look to be in serious violation of WP:3RR.--AgentCDE 02:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I do not see anything indicating that this paragraph doesn't belong. Stop deleting it, there ISN'T any discussion.--AgentCDE 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)