Would you also say that general licensing is irrelevant for everyone?

▲ semiquaver 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Of course not. But there’s no indication whatsoever that any license has been violated. Downloading a file from a free access server cannot violate license terms.

Fear that something will happen is not the same thing as evidence it has happened.

▲ 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲ philipwhiuk 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Downloading a file from a free access server cannot violate license terms.

Sure it can. If you're downloading it for commercial purposes (clearly the case) you're violating the license.

	▲	semiquaver 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		`> If you're downloading it for commercial purposes (clearly the case) you're violating the license.` No. Copyright doesn’t work that way, no matter how much you might wish it did. And it’s a very important thing for the web that it doesn’t. Legally speaking, it is extremely well established that downloading is not the type of copying that “copyright” concerns itself with. And the GPL and similar licenses are predicated on copyright laws. Once you make the content available in some other way, then copyright law might have something to say. People in tech used to make fun of “you wouldn’t download a car”. It’s sad that so many have reversed their principles the moment a convenient villain shows up.

▲ well_ackshually 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If only you could read the article and see that the vast majority of the assets are licensed under a non-commercial clause.

I guess we'll never know until you learn to read anything other than sheet music.