5 ms·
No, I'm not. The term open source is defined here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Copyleft, free software, and open source all have diff
by ddevault 6y ago
No, I'm not. The term open source is defined here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
Copyleft, free software, and open source all have different meanings, and GitHub has no restrictions on the license of software using its platform, and you're deliberately confoudning these things here to sow confusion. There are millions of different software licenses, yes, but that doesn't make them all open source. Give me a break. Is Windows "open source" by your reckoning? I has a license, after all, and I can decompile it, after all.
- divs1210 6y agoDecompiling Windows is punishable by law.
- fluffything 6y agoEULAs are not laws
- redblacktree 6y agoAren't EULAs are enforced by the CFAA? Isn't that why Aaron Schwartz is no longer with us?
- freehunter 6y agoThat’s not entirely clear, actually. Like the other comment says, the CFAA has been used to criminalize violations of EULAs in the past and the courts have been split on that idea: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/violating-terms-use-isnt-crime-eff-tells-court-again https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/violating-terms-use-is... Violating a EULA shouldn’t be a crime but it’s not always that clear cut.
- vonmoltke 6y agoWe're talking about EULAs, but your article and the Swartz case concern Terms of Use, which are related but different. Terms of Use concern access to someone else's computer system, hence why overzealous lawyers and prosecutors have tried to expand the CFAA to cover them. EULAs concern what an end user can do with a piece of software on their own system or systems they control. I don't see how this intersects the CFAA at all.
- ddevault 6y agoWhich law?