4 ms·
I 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
by erinnh 5y ago
I 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.