KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader is distributed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License. It is, seemingly, a highly portable application, being available for Linux, Android, Windows, and a number of dedicated reader devices. The Android version is available via F-Droid, which makes this version a good starting place for anybody wanting to try out KOReader without performing surgery on a more specialized reader device. In this setting, it is a worthy alternative to FBReader (which is also a reasonable application) and, unlike FBReader, it doesn't try to sell proprietary plugins.
Those of us who have been playing with Linux for a long time, though, remember the special adrenaline rush that comes with trying to install free software onto a device that wasn't intended to support modification by its owner. One does not really know a piece of software until one has given it the opportunity to turn a useful device into electronic waste. So naturally your editor went quickly from the Android application to installing KOReader on his Kobo device. The Kobo, as it turns out, is a relatively open device; the installation is just a matter of mounting it as USB storage and unzipping a couple of files into it. Then comes the long, sweaty-palms pause while the Kobo meditates on the new software while presenting a blank screen.
Turning the pages
Eventually that phase passes, the device comes back to life. KOReader, at
least when this installation method is used, does not replace the existing
Kobo interface; instead, it presents itself as if it were
just another book waiting to be read. Entering the application (by telling
the device to "read" the KOReader "book") yields a
list of top-level directories on the device; there does not appear to be a
way to just list all of the books on the device short of just
dumping them all into the root directory. The top-level view, in other
words, is essentially a file browser. One moves through the directory
hierarchy in the usual way; tapping on a book will open it to the cover image.
KOReader, it seems, must go through a process of rendering the entire book before it can present the first page. Asking it to read a large text book led to a long delay (for a "several minutes" value of "long") before the cover was shown. If one changes a parameter like the font size, the entire process begins again, making tweaking such parameters a less than fully rewarding experience. Neither FBReader nor the native Kobo reader exhibit this behavior. Rendering time for more reasonably sized books is not terrible, though.
User interfaces for electronic-ink devices must be developed with that medium's constraints in mind. Flashy animations just do not translate well, for example; the application needs to put up its control interfaces with a minimum of screen rewriting. KOReader has clearly been written with this kind of screen in mind, and the interface works well on the Kobo reader. This interface will be familiar to users of other book-reading applications. Tapping on the right edge moves forward one page; the left edge moves back. Swiping up or down the left edge adjusts the screen brightness. Tapping at the top yields information about the book and a plethora of menu options. It is possible to jump in and start reading books without having to work through the manual first.
That said, a reading of the manual does have its rewards.
One place where KOReader clearly stands out is in its extensive customization
options, not all of which are obvious without a bit of supplementary
description. Almost any electronic-book reader allows the tweaking of the
font
size and, perhaps, margins. KOReader lets one adjust just about anything that
somebody might have thought of to play with. There are controls for font
hinting and kerning, for example. Spacing within and between words can be
tweaked, as can the line spacing. There is a set of menus to tweak the
style sheets used for rendering or do things like suppress blank pages at
the end of a chapter. Most of these tweaks (and more) can be assigned to
any of a large set of gestures recognized by the software. If one wants to
adjust the bottom margin with a two-finger diagonal (bottom right to upper
left swipe), it is possible.
One truly useful feature is that the default value for most parameters can be set with a long tap. Every book seems to come with its own wacky font size; setting the default size eliminates the process of adjusting it at the beginning of every new book.
Beyond the usual EPUB, KOReader can handle PDF files (and a long
list of other formats as well). The results are variable. PDF is a
page-oriented format, and full pages tend not to render legibly on small
reader screens, so some accommodations must be made. KOReader has a whole
set of
options to try to ease the process, starting with simply eliminating the
margins on the page. There is a mode that will divide each page into
squares and step through them in any of eight different sequences; the
primary use case for this mode appears to be comic books. There's another
mode that simply tries to identify comic panels (and step through them)
automatically. KOReader
can be asked to extract the text from the PDF and reflow it for the screen,
an option that works reasonably well for some PDFs that contain recognizable
text. For the truly hard cases, KOReader can use Tesseract to perform optical
character recognition and then reflow the results.
There are a number of connectivity modes available with KOReader. One can, of course, just plug in the reader as a USB-storage device and dump books onto it. Or KOReader can start up its own SSH server and accept files copied in that way. There is a plugin to obtain books from a number of cloud-storage services. KOReader can also connect to a local Calibre server and be fed books that way — though, when your editor tried this, the result was a crash and an illegible traceback on the reader screen, which is not the reading material that had been hoped for.
Many of the other expected features are there. KOReader allows the highlighting of sections and attaching notes to books. It can look up words in a dictionary. Happily for the purposes of this article, KOReader can take screen shots (just simultaneously tap on two diagonally opposite corners). And so on; the basic point that KOReader is a program with a lot of features should be clear by now.
One thing that KOReader cannot do, of course, is read books that are protected by DRM; it doesn't even make them visible in the interface if they exist on the device. There are authors and publishers who make at least some of their books available without DRM; for the rest, it's a matter of falling back to the built-in reader or employing one of the ways of removing DRM that are alleged to exist. This is not ideal, but it is a reflection of the less-than-ideal world we live in rather than on KOReader itself.
Looking at the code
The KOReader source is available on GitHub. It turns out to be a little over 140,000 lines of mostly Lua code that can be built for any of the platforms that KOReader supports.
The project seems to produce a release on a roughly monthly schedule. Since the v2021.03 release (March, 2021), 873 non-merge commits have been made to the project trunk; that is a little over two per day. That work was contributed by 47 developers, with the top two developers ("NiLuJe" and "hius07") being responsible for just under half of the total. This project, in other words, appears to be alive and well, though doubtless more contributors would be appreciated.
Will KOReader take the place of the native Kobo reader application on this
device? There are a few more science-fiction novels to be read in KOReader
before the decision can be made, but at least the research is entertaining.
KOReader will be a good reader application for users who are willing to
spend a bit of time tweaking its knobs to get the ideal experience.
KOReader will also be good for anybody who might (rightly) worry that their
proprietary reader device might just be spying on them. Users
who want a simpler interface or who have to work with DRM-encumbered books
will probably want to look for something else. Either way, KOReader
provides a free-software alternative that can be used across a wide range
of hardware, and that seems like a good thing.
Posted Apr 15, 2022 16:07 UTC (Fri)
by atnot (subscriber, #124910)
[Link] (1 responses)
In general, while it's far from perfect, I think the great work the Kobo hacking community has done despite the limitations has definitely made it one of the best e-reading experiences one can have today without locking oneself in.
Posted Apr 15, 2022 19:24 UTC (Fri)
by bartoc (guest, #124262)
[Link]
I tend to read books (stuff you sit down and read cover to cover) in nickel (the first party reader) but scientific papers and reference material in Plato/KoReader, esp KoReader has some wonderful PDF reflowing features.
Posted Apr 15, 2022 20:25 UTC (Fri)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link] (22 responses)
In the less-than-ideal but real world we live in, DRM works great. It works great because it does not stop "professional" thieves and penniless people but it does stop the huge number of opportunistic thieves who transitioned from Napster etc. to Spotify almost effortlessly. In other words, DRM saved the music industry (plenty of evidence there) and maybe other, similar industries like the movie industry during COVID.
Was abusive legislation like the DMCA even required? Probably not, I suspect it made little difference. I doubt the hundreds of millions of people who started paying for content did it because they were afraid of getting caught. More because DRM was simpler, safer (less malware) and faster.
Posted Apr 16, 2022 5:44 UTC (Sat)
by ptman (subscriber, #57271)
[Link]
Posted Apr 16, 2022 11:38 UTC (Sat)
by qyliss (subscriber, #131684)
[Link] (4 responses)
Napster ceased operations in 2001. Spotify wasn't even founded until 2006. In the meantime, the big place to get music was iTunes, which managed to go entirely DRM-free before Spotify was even available outside Sweden. The music industry clearly did not need DRM to survive.
Posted Apr 17, 2022 14:43 UTC (Sun)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
Posted Apr 17, 2022 17:50 UTC (Sun)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link] (2 responses)
Keep in mind these are revenues in the richest parts of the world.
It seems like Apple (nor anyone else) ever sold or rented DRM-free _movies_.
Of course there's a large choice of tools to strip FairPlay and other DRM. DRM is only intended as a major annoyance and incentive to pay for people rich enough to afford it. Clearly not everyone: https://www.google.com/search?q=streaming+password+sharing
It's obviously very hard to tell what would have happened in a "counterfactual" world with DRM-free streaming services but for sure DRM-ed streaming has saved the music industry; "it works".
Speaking of streaming here's an interesting proposition: "pay for who you play"
Posted Apr 18, 2022 9:24 UTC (Mon)
by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375)
[Link]
Are these baseline numbers for running a music business or are they remuneration to artists? Every time this comes up, I'm keen to point back to artists supposedly being able to live from the rewards of their creative work because of the monopoly protections of copyright. If we're taking about earning by non-musicians who broker and trade creative works, streaming and download/physical artefact sales are different contractual terms and different delivery mechanisms, making for an apple-orange comparison.
>Speaking of streaming here's an interesting proposition: "pay for who you play"
I like this idea, thank you for sharing it. Especially when micropayments promise the ability to pay artists for their creations.
I'd love an Electronic Monk, to watch TV and listen to the music I don't have time to observe.
K3n.
Posted Apr 28, 2022 18:00 UTC (Thu)
by mrugiero (guest, #153040)
[Link]
> funny enough, digital sales seem to be lower than physical sales
Having streaming services available this actually doesn't have a real "funny" factor if you think of it. Except from some more conscious users that may not entirely trust streaming services to keep all titles up (it's happened before after all), the only people that may be interested in actually having a copy are proper fans, the kind that would value the boxing art the copy comes with. For example, I don't own a lot of shows, but I did buy the Lost box set back in the day, because it was damn beautiful and very elaborate. A digital copy would have been meh, even without streaming services piracy isn't really all that prosecuted in my country and, while nowadays I'm wary of pirating something I can pay for and I appreciate (I like to incentivize authors of stuff I like), at the time it seemed like a waste of money. I didn't have a lot of money back then either, a lot of savings went on that box set.
Posted Apr 17, 2022 8:25 UTC (Sun)
by gfernandes (subscriber, #119910)
[Link] (1 responses)
There is no world in which DRM was, is, or will ever be, good for anyone except dinosaurs trying to pretend the meteor hasn't landed.
Posted Apr 17, 2022 16:44 UTC (Sun)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
Measuring crime is difficult and measuring IP theft is much harder. That's why DRM discussions tend to be very "religious"... on BOTH sides: thanks for reminding us.
Posted Apr 18, 2022 4:25 UTC (Mon)
by dvdeug (guest, #10998)
[Link]
Streaming is DRMed? Copying from streams has always been clumsy enough and annoying enough, DRM or no, that the only people who do it are the "penniless" people, the people who taped from the radio. I've never thought to try to tape streaming audio, since there has always been easier ways to get a copy of the music, without even thinking about potential DRM on it.
Posted Apr 19, 2022 7:50 UTC (Tue)
by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958)
[Link] (3 responses)
I mean… works great in stopping me from paying netflix, disney and whatever because I know it won't work on linux.
Yes firefox has the option to enable DRM. It never worked for me and I don't have the patience of spending days to figure it out when there are easier alternatives at hand.
Posted Apr 19, 2022 13:53 UTC (Tue)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
DRM is obviously a pure annoyance for all customers with absolutely zero value.
Posted Apr 27, 2022 3:04 UTC (Wed)
by JanC_ (guest, #34940)
[Link]
Many streaming services only allow it for lower resolutions also (requiring hardware DRM for better qualities).
Posted May 1, 2022 16:26 UTC (Sun)
by sammythesnake (guest, #17693)
[Link]
It doesn't deal very gracefully with my weak internet connection when it's in a bad mood, though. A download option would be nice so I could just watch the whole program when it eventually finishes downloading rather than have to watch it in wee chunks as I catch up to the download and have to wait for it to get ahead again.
Several other streaming services have plugins for Kodi but I front have logins to try others :-P
Honestly, the user interface for pirate bay/bittorrent is still miles ahead of DVDs (ironically, non-pirates are still the only ones who have to sit through unskipable anti-piracy scaremongering!) and even though streaming services are much better than they used to be, they're still far too add-rich for my liking. If I'm paying for content, I feel entitled to have no adverts or other crap I front want foisted on me...
Posted Apr 21, 2022 6:11 UTC (Thu)
by ceplm (subscriber, #41334)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Apr 21, 2022 17:17 UTC (Thu)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link] (7 responses)
PS: a VPN is the usual "solution" for geo restrictions.
Posted Apr 21, 2022 17:55 UTC (Thu)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link] (6 responses)
Too hastily posted sorry. What I meant is: given a choice between paid services and asking their non-technical and trusted friends to copy and reshare DRM-free files, which option do you think these millions of password-sharing people would choose? The goal of DRM is only to make that exact sort of informal, "between trusted friends" copies harder. It's not to stop professional pirates, people pushing DRM are not delusional. For professional pirates they ask the FBI to do the job, not DRM.
Welcome to the real world where the majority of people think that copying is not really stealing. Maybe because it does not take anything from anyone else?
Posted Apr 28, 2022 18:04 UTC (Thu)
by mrugiero (guest, #153040)
[Link] (5 responses)
Except it's akin to rejecting to pay the salary to someone who provided a service to you. Note that I'm 100% in favor of piracy when either you don't want to help a particular individual (I enjoy some rather controversial people's music, and I really really don't want to feed them) or you can't pay for the stuff and would thus make no difference to the author whether you consume their product or not, but otherwise it's opportunity cost. I wonder if that's also why people tend to never donate to open source projects, just because it's freely distributed doesn't mean making it was free :^)
Posted Apr 29, 2022 19:09 UTC (Fri)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link] (4 responses)
> Except it's akin to rejecting to pay the salary to someone who provided a service to you.
If I don't pay the guy cleaning my gutters then it does very much take from him the time he would have used to clean someone else's and the money he would have been correctly paid.
> Note that I'm 100% in favor of piracy when either you don't want to help a particular individual
Laws that depend on whom you like: that's a very interesting legal and fairness concept.
> or you can't pay for the stuff and would thus make no difference to the author
This one is a bit more logical but I'm afraid the definition of "can't pay" is still very subjective. I lived with people who "could not" pay their $15 share of a monthly bill after partying most of the month or going to Starbucks every single morning (cause you know, the free company's coffee really sucks...) and I also know they were not that extraordinary at all, heard plenty of similar stories. Money is extremely subjective and I really, really doubt the hundreds of millions of people sharing a streaming password in the USA can actually not pay for their own subscription. Some yes, hundreds of millions, no. Inequalities are growing fast but I don't think hundreds of millions of people in the USA struggle to put food on the table, at least not yet. Hence DRM as a mitigation. DRM = better than not making any money at all.
I bet most of us have seen newspapers begging for a monthly subscription which is "only the price of a sandwich"
> as services and mainstream studios take the biggest cut, and that may also encourage piracy in the base of ideology.
"I steal but rich people steal much more!" 100% correct but where do we go from there? I think the answer is highly nation-specific. Assuming of course there's is even a real, functional nation in the first place and not everyone just caring for themselves.
Posted Apr 30, 2022 15:40 UTC (Sat)
by mrugiero (guest, #153040)
[Link] (2 responses)
Exactly. With software stuff compounds. The salary often comes from assuming a certain number of sales. The effort is still there and you should pay for it.
> Laws that depend on whom you like: that's a very interesting legal and fairness concept.
Laws don't. Ethics are much more subjective.
> or you can't pay for the stuff and would thus make no difference to the author
> This one is a bit more logical but I'm afraid the definition of "can't pay" is still very subjective. I lived with people who "could not" pay their $15 share of a monthly bill after partying most of the month or going to Starbucks every single morning (cause you know, the free company's coffee really sucks...) and I also know they were not that extraordinary at all, heard plenty of similar stories.
Certainly. I can never know, so I don't judge on an individual level.
> Money is extremely subjective and I really, really doubt the hundreds of millions of people sharing a streaming password in the USA can actually not pay for their own subscription.
I agree 100%. I see it everyday.
> Some yes, hundreds of millions, no. Inequalities are growing fast but I don't think hundreds of millions of people in the USA struggle to put food on the table, at least not yet. Hence DRM as a mitigation. DRM = better than not making any money at all.
The USA is not the only country on Earth. I agree on DRM being a mitigation, it didn't come from under a tree. But just look for a torrent of just about anything and see it doesn't work. The only people that have it harder is the common folk who weren't that likely to commit mass piracy anyway.
> I bet most of us have seen newspapers begging for a monthly subscription which is "only the price of a sandwich"
The price of a sandwich in the US is about 10% of a regular apartment rent where I live. And while I mentioned I know plenty of people who can pay but choose not to, I also know plenty of people that can't pay if they have to pay dollars. Not only because of our worthless currency but because there are restrictions to that kind of payments.
> "I steal but rich people steal much more!" 100% correct but where do we go from there? I think the answer is highly nation-specific. Assuming of course there's is even a real, functional nation in the first place and not everyone just caring for themselves.
The first part is fair. The second I don't really understand.
Anyway, my main point is that I may understand not all incentives to commit piracy may be strictly greedy, but that it doesn't mean "it's a crime without consequences" as many people portrays it. Salaries get paid from sales. That's how capitalism works and we live in a capitalist world. A sale that does not happen hurts the income of the authors, regardless of whether middlemen are involved. If the sale would be impossible and because of the nature of software and digital media it may be of no consequence, but in most cases the sale could have happened so it isn't. There's also the fact that often it is just lies we tell ourselves.
Posted Apr 30, 2022 15:54 UTC (Sat)
by mrugiero (guest, #153040)
[Link] (1 responses)
And FWIW this is precisely one of the problem community projects suffer from as well. People choose not to donate not because they can't or because they find no use for the software, but because they can get away with it.
But at least in my country, where you have 40% of poverty and bittorrent has been the go-to place to get movies and shows for years, it's easy to see it isn't because of DRM that most of those who can pay the fee use Netflix, but because of the convenience and feed it provides. DRM is simply irrelevant, you can find torrents for everything. Even the non-tech-savvy have and use pirated options here, as they use strem.io. When they pick Netflix over that, it's for the recommendations and the streaming quality (subs are complicated in strem.io, you may have buffering issues, etc).
Posted May 3, 2022 17:40 UTC (Tue)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
The entire purpose of DRM is to make _inconvenient_ to share content safely between friends. So yes even in your country it helps a bit.
Posted Apr 30, 2022 16:19 UTC (Sat)
by mrugiero (guest, #153040)
[Link]
Tho now that I think of it, in countries where there's actual prosecution of piracy it may be a good mitigation. I often forget countries like Germany actually enforce laws. Here there's _technically_ a law, but in reality they only apply it for commercial uses (a disco using music without paying the copyright enforcement agency, a company using pirated software in their work stations), nobody bothers anybody else. You won't get a fine or anything like that even if you have terabytes of shows being seeded on bittorrent. I know because I know people who ideologically oppose to copyright and do that.
In my personal case, I have a privileged position for my country, as programmers tend to have relative to their country in almost every country. I do pirate a few things mostly for convenience (and in some cases because I'm cheap when the show/movie is the only one I want from that service and I don't want a monthly fee for something I may watch once a year), but most I pay because I believe in it, I know if nobody pays it's a tragedy of the commons that I'd much rather avoid. But certainly it isn't DRM stopping me, not even close.
Posted Apr 16, 2022 2:20 UTC (Sat)
by alden (subscriber, #137708)
[Link]
More importantly: I used to leave my e-reader exclusively in airplane mode to avoid Kobo's invasive telemetry. Eventually, I'll make a full write up about this, but in short, I poked around the filesystem and found tons of tracking garbage all over the place, and databases storing sensitive information about your reading habits to an uncalled for level of granularity. (Kindle is guilty of this as well, but this has been documented elsewhere already.)
Now, with KOReader, I can stay connected to WiFi and get books and RSS feeds over the air, while the native Nickel application doesn't know my router's WiFi password. I don't have to act like it's 2005 and side-load everything over USB anymore, all the while avoiding shipping every single interaction I have with books to some anonymous corporate conglomerate. This falls short of an FSF-certified level of freedom, but it sure is a big improvement compared to being trapped in the Kindle surveillance ecosystem.
Posted Apr 16, 2022 14:21 UTC (Sat)
by karim (subscriber, #114)
[Link] (16 responses)
Posted Apr 17, 2022 2:44 UTC (Sun)
by willy (subscriber, #9762)
[Link] (15 responses)
Posted Apr 17, 2022 2:50 UTC (Sun)
by karim (subscriber, #114)
[Link] (14 responses)
Posted Apr 17, 2022 2:54 UTC (Sun)
by karim (subscriber, #114)
[Link]
Posted Apr 19, 2022 18:32 UTC (Tue)
by dsommers (subscriber, #55274)
[Link] (12 responses)
If the Affero license scares companies from building a service on an open source project, that is actually a good thing for the project. The company (if playing by the laws and rules) need to provide the source code if anyone using their services requests it. If they refuse, they deserve no rights to use that code.
For most end-users, the Affero variant doesn't really make much of a difference at all. Not until you take that code, modify it and distribute it as a network service.
Posted Apr 19, 2022 19:50 UTC (Tue)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link] (3 responses)
I also see it as being the foundation stone of a particularly noxious "open core" strategy for a player with deep pockets. Publish, under the AGPL, an "open core" to which you hold 100% of the copyrights, run a considerably extended proprietary build of the software as a paid network service, and do not accept community contributions to your core.
People whose needs are small enough that billing them is more hassle than it's worth can use your "core" offering for free, but your competitors can't build a proprietary platform on top of it because you've AGPL'd the core.
(I'm pretty sure I didn't come up with this idea independently, btw.)
Posted Apr 20, 2022 7:40 UTC (Wed)
by dsommers (subscriber, #55274)
[Link] (2 responses)
My understanding of the Affero licenses is that a commercial company owning the source code and taking the "open core" approach would need to dual license the code to get away from the Affero GPL aspects. Otherwise, they will need to provide the full source of the running service component upon request.
That said, this open sourced service component could probably access other non-open source components over a network socket, where the source code of the the latter part would not need to be revealed.
Posted Apr 20, 2022 18:00 UTC (Wed)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link]
I don't see how publishing part of Software You Completely Own under the Affero GPL has any legal relevance to what you do with the full version of Software You Completely Own running on Hardware You Own, except possibly by some probably-fragile argument based on estoppel doctrines.
Posted Apr 22, 2022 2:19 UTC (Fri)
by bartoc (guest, #124262)
[Link]
To be clear: I prefer these sorts of dual licensing situations to just keeping everything closed, but I probably wouldn't want to try and build a company on top of AGPL code that I didn't have the copyrights for.
Posted Apr 20, 2022 12:51 UTC (Wed)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (7 responses)
I find Hector Martin's analysis of the risk convincing, personally - it appears to be impossible to comply with the terms of the AGPLv3 as written if it's a community project, but not if you're the sole copyright holder.
Which leads to a messy situation where a company can comply (because they act as one entity doing the modification internally), but a community project cannot. It's even better for companies running a copyright assignment and open core stunts - as the copyright holder, they don't need a licence to distribute copies, so can ignore the terms completely, while the licence is sufficiently hard to comply with that if you do modify it and expose that modification to the world, I can use copyright infringement lawsuits to shut down your community project.
This is in contrast to GPLv3, where it's manageable to comply with the licence even as an individual. And I agree with Hector Martin's claim that it's a consequence of trying to close the SaaS loophole (which is what you're worrying about) while not ignoring Freedom 0.
Posted Apr 20, 2022 13:21 UTC (Wed)
by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Apr 20, 2022 15:24 UTC (Wed)
by karim (subscriber, #114)
[Link] (5 responses)
If you follow the thread, you'll eventually find that the author does link to a quite thorough analysis he had posted on HN on this topic:
That analysis is relatively well constructed from my point of view. He's definitely spent way much more time to look at this than I have, but ends up with the same conclusion.
Posted Apr 21, 2022 7:28 UTC (Thu)
by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958)
[Link] (4 responses)
At the end of the day some random comment of a person with no legal training doesn't seem to me to be more reliable than the people at FSF who do this for a living.
Posted Apr 21, 2022 9:03 UTC (Thu)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (3 responses)
Hector isn't just a random - he's a lead developer on Asahi Linux, reverse-engineering the Apple M1 SoC.
And his analysis is the same as I've had from a lawyer (noting that the following is not legal advice, just my notes from the discussion), whose view was that if the court in Neo4j vs Purethink chose to assert that section 7 did not apply in Purethink's use of Neo4j under AGPLv3, then the AGPLv3 is probably impossible to comply with in full, since the same intent-based analysis is needed to apply section 10 to the copyright holder's restrictions as is needed to make section 13 apply to someone who does not distribute a copy of the code they're running.
In both cases, to interpret the licence the way the FSF would like it interpreted falls foul of the normal rules of drafting contracts; section 13 and section 2 are in conflict, just as section 10 is in conflict with the added terms Neo4j used. Since the court chose the interpretation of section 10 that means that section 7 does not apply to conditions added by the copyright holder (which would be the normal rules of drafting coming into play - the copyright holder is not bound by the licence), the chances are high that a court will resolve the conflict between section 2 ("You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force") and section 13 ("your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source").
Specifically, if I act to use a separate proxy to remove the notice, section 13 does not come into play when running my proxy - the proxy is not a covered work. Section 2 means that I can run my modified version (which complies with section 13, so I've not breached the licence) freely, and grant the proxy access to it. How do you prevent me from running a separate system that removes a specific link that I have myself added (which means I am the copyright holder), without placing restrictions on my right to run the modified program, and without also putting the operation of (say) a TLS termination proxy into a legally grey area?
Posted Apr 21, 2022 10:42 UTC (Thu)
by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958)
[Link] (2 responses)
I have no idea to whom nicknames on HN map to.
Regardless, being a skilled developer doesn't make you always right, and is especially irrelevant when talking about topics outside of software development.
> court in Neo4j vs Purethink
Irrelevant, that was software under a double license.
> In both cases, to interpret the licence the way the FSF would like it interpreted falls foul of the normal rules of drafting contracts
Citation needed :)
> section 13 and section 2 are in conflict
I don't see it. And neither one of us is an expert in the topic, so I don't see why should your opinion count more.
> Since the court chose the interpretation of section 10
As I said, they were ruling on a double licensed software.
> if I act to use a separate proxy to remove the notice, section 13 does not come into play when running my proxy
Of course it does :)
Otherwise no proxy would be needed at all, since my client is probably crossing a number of routers to reach your server anyway. It doesn't matter how many steps it takes, it matters that it does reach it.
This proxy idea is foolish.
Posted Apr 21, 2022 11:22 UTC (Thu)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (1 responses)
Like I said, I'm not your lawyer, and if you want legal advice, you should speak to a lawyer.
The normal rules of drafting legal documents have two things in play:
It's the combination of those two that results in the AGPL not working the way the FSF want it to. The first means that any conflict between section 2 and section 13 should be resolved in favour of the licensee, not the licensor, since the licensor could have chosen other terms if they didn't want the conflict - this is why Neo4j versus Purethink went against the FSF's intent with the AGPL, since the licensor did choose other terms, and Purethink can't rely on the FSF's interpretation alone.
The second means that the network is out of scope once you get beyond the program itself, because section 2 is clear that it doesn't impose restrictions on merely running the program, and no section of the AGPL brings the entirety of the network into the AGPL's scope. If my program complies with section 13 by offering code to its users, but the network blocks that offer, I'm in compliance - you'd need the court to rule that the network is in scope to get the proxy trick barred, and that's a reach.
Posted Apr 21, 2022 13:23 UTC (Thu)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
The intent behind the source-code download provision in the AGPL is obviously that actual end users of the service do indeed get the opportunity to download the corresponding source code. Resorting to technical subterfuge to make that deliberately impossible, in order to deprive end users of a privilege expressly included in the license by the original licensor of the code, probably won't fly. On the whole, courts don't like subterfuge.
One could even argue that it is your duty as the operator of the service to ensure that “the network” does not interfere unduly with what you are legally obliged to provide to the end users of your service. “Too bad, that naughty proxy is beyond my control” is unlikely to work as an excuse when it is in fact simpler to not have the proxy in the first place, and when there are countless hosting providers that will let you do exactly that.
Posted Apr 19, 2022 11:38 UTC (Tue)
by nmingott (guest, #151670)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Apr 19, 2022 13:01 UTC (Tue)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (2 responses)
However, I also only tend to read dead trees, so take that as you will.
Posted Apr 19, 2022 13:11 UTC (Tue)
by amacater (subscriber, #790)
[Link]
Posted Apr 22, 2022 2:20 UTC (Fri)
by bartoc (guest, #124262)
[Link]
Posted Apr 21, 2022 6:21 UTC (Thu)
by ceplm (subscriber, #41334)
[Link]
Posted Apr 23, 2022 0:16 UTC (Sat)
by jnareb (subscriber, #46500)
[Link]
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/10/recorded-music-revenue-...
https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ (very nice graphs)
Same trends in Europe https://www.impalamusic.org/stats-2/
https://musically.com/2020/10/01/deezer-still-pushing-for...
There are reports of bots listening to streaming services to boost one particular artist's revenue. This would fix that and much more.
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
https://musically.com/2020/10/01/deezer-still-pushing-for...
>There are reports of bots listening to streaming services to boost one particular artist's revenue. This would fix that and much more.
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
Most users would rather prefer the practicality of streaming.
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
Then again, I also understand that in the real world only buying directly from indie studios really makes any significant difference to the actual author, as services and mainstream studios take the biggest cut, and that may also encourage piracy in the base of ideology.
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
Some shows I technically both pay and pirate because sometimes I watch them at a friend's home and a service I paid provides it but I don't want to go through the hassle of logging in their TV (sometimes it isn't even an option because the app is not supported in the TV or the TV, in fewer cases as I mostly watch them with the same friend, isn't even smart; again, poor country, hardware is most often dated and software services providers deprecate support quickly).
In the specific case of games, because I'd rather lend it to a few friends and only just now learned that I can do that with Steam, I generally pay a premium to get it from GOG without DRM. Sometimes I do prefer Steam because the prices are adjusted to our cost of living, they may be 10x cheaper or more than in GOG. GOG is also a bit inconvenient because I need to authorize explicitly by phone call every purchase I make that is charged in dollars, and because it forces me to do it with a credit card rather than debit (I like to have stuff reflected instantly on my account to make sure I don't overspend, I always prefer debit). Luckily I don't play enough for that to be a major problem.
Music I pay everything, even if I'd rather not pay some (as mentioned in my first comment), because Spotify is simply more convenient. Maybe with the exception of one or two songs that are unavailable, but even those I listen on YouTube rather than from illegitimate download.
Came for the PDF support, stayed for freedom
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30044019
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
If my program complies with section 13 by offering code to its users, but the network blocks that offer, I'm in compliance - you'd need the court to rule that the network is in scope to get the proxy trick barred, and that's a reach.
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
KOReader: a free electronic-book reader for e-ink devices
Android-based and Linux-based e-ink devices