3 ms·
Things get philosophical rather quickly I'm afraid. If I misconfigure an FTP server, and you download some MIT code that I stripped the copyrights from, does th
by phendrenad2 5y ago
Things get philosophical rather quickly I'm afraid.
If I misconfigure an FTP server, and you download some MIT code that I stripped the copyrights from, does that count as redistribution?
- sicromoft 5y ago[deleted]
- colejohnson66 5y agoNo. If you hack into my company and siphon out an EXE for an internal tool that uses GPL licensed code, you are not entitled to the source code of the package because the company did not “distribute” it to you; you took it without any right to have it. There’s a whole philosophical debate we can have where we quibble over the definitions of words as they deal with technology, but the (US) courts generally don’t care about technicalities. An analogy is stolen property. If you purchase something that is stolen property, you have (almost) no legal right to it; the courts will often order its seizure for return to the original owner. By “hacking” (according to the CFAA), you “stole” the EXE.
- NeutronStar 5y ago
- erinnh 5y agoI would say that it isnt, because you had no intent to redistribute it. But you cant make that argument here, as its a public repo, as such Microsoft did have the intent to redistribute.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- joshmanders 5y agoBut wouldn't this case fall under the same? Your argument is that a misconfigured FTP server isn't intent to distribute. What if this was a misconfigured fork that was meant to be private but was set public? Not intent to distribute either.
- albedoa 5y agoThose two things are far more similar to each other than to a public repo whose intent is to redistribute. So no, this case is not the same as either a misconfigured FTP server or a misconfigured repo.
- cute_boi 5y agoYes, it counts as distribution. Why you would even stripped copyrights form?