3 ms·
Isn't there a big difference between 'illegal' and 'not recognized/accepted'?? This doesn't prevent anyone anywhere from making and using open source software i
by andreasvc 15y ago
Isn't there a big difference between 'illegal' and 'not recognized/accepted'?? This doesn't prevent anyone anywhere from making and using open source software if they please.
- ma2rten 15y agoYou could be sued by the copyright holder if you redistribute it. So it's illegal.
- andreasvc 15y agoI don't get what you're saying. If the copyright holder releases something under an open source license, then he is not going to sue you for doing precisely what the license is mean to facilitate. It would only be "illegal" if if it's against the law to write a program and reveal its source code, and that would simply be non-sensical.
- mmahut 15y agoAny of the thousands of linux contributors has the every right to sue you if you are redistributing his code without his written permission (remember, GPL is invalid in law regards in SVK). I don't think it's very sane to trust the copyright holders' good mood to not sue you when you are infringing his copyrights - and yes, you are infringing it if you don't have his signed agreement, that's the law and no matter you write and call a license you cannot out-rule that. In addition, corporations are owning part of that copyright too - if you look at software patents war, it clearly shows what tools are to be used against the competition. I'm not sure if I understand your last sentence.