| ▲ | lenerdenator 19 hours ago |
| Unless you don't copy the license terms, it's impossible to "steal" open-source code. That's... sort of the point. |
|
| ▲ | gryfft 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Many open source licenses levy restrictions upon the acceptable use of the software. Those restrictions may include attribution requirements, up to and including a requirement to include the license when redistributing the code; they may forbid using derivative works for commercial purposes; they may require the downstream project to utilize the same license. Open source is not the same thing as "anybody can do anything they want forever." |
| |
| ▲ | tzs 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > they may forbid using derivative works for commercial purposes The most widely used definitions of “open source” do not allow such a prohibition. | | |
| ▲ | stanac 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yup, if we take OSI as defacto authority on open source definition > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. https://opensource.org/osd |
| |
| ▲ | lenerdenator 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Unless you don't copy the license terms | | |
| ▲ | gryfft 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | You edited your comment while I was replying, and merely copying the license does not cover many other possible restrictions. | | |
| ▲ | lenerdenator 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | I didn't edit anything. I did choose the wrong word, though. Comply, not copy. | | |
| ▲ | gryfft 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, if it's my memory at fault then I apologize. My memory of the comment I replied to didn't include the initial qualifying phrase with either word choice. | |
| ▲ | 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | DiabloD3 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So, by definition, you did edit it to change the typo. | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | >So, by definition, you did edit it to change the typo. their comment still says "copy". the comment you are replying to clarifies that they meant to type "comply", not copy. since the wrong word is still there, 'by definition' they have not edited it. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | irdc 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Papermark is AGPL; Corgi must release all its changes. |
| |
| ▲ | lenerdenator 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | That means they're not complying with the license terms. Which would be stealing. Like I said it would be. | | |
| ▲ | galangalalgol 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Copyright violation is not theft. Your effort to create something that can be effortlessly copied conveys to you no property. Society deems it beneficial to grant a time limited monopoly on copying it to spur innovation. | | |
| ▲ | brookst 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | You wouldn’t steal a car! | | |
| ▲ | skeledrew 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Stealing a car - or anything tangible - means... the owner is very literally deprived of the benefits of owning said car/thing. Can't really say the same for a copied pattern of bits. | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But I would download one. |
|
| |
| ▲ | josephg 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thats not what you said. You said "copy the license terms". Copying a license isn't the same as complying with one. Though it looks like in this case they didn't do either. | |
| ▲ | irdc 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So we're in violent agreement then? | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | samtheprogram 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's really hard to not assume this is intentional ragebait. A cursory look reveals they aren't complying. So, as you say, they are stealing. What's the point of this comment? |
|
| ▲ | exo762 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Copyleft is still a thing. Right to attribution is still a thing. Please, read about it and you will discover that there is a lot of nuance to the open-source code. |
