3 ms·
1. No. Why? 2. It's in the user agreement 3. You weren't harmed in any practical way 4. It's not a real tool and nobody's using it in the long run 5. If GP
by JohnHaugeland 4y ago
1. No. Why?
2. It's in the user agreement
3. You weren't harmed in any practical way
4. It's not a real tool and nobody's using it in the long run
5. If GPL fans want to waste money on lawyers, focus on making the GPL have teeth
6. No, of course you don't get to impose a new license on your work retroactively
- Longlius 4y agoThe GPL has teeth. Vendors are routinely sued over infringement. This is why a lot of things like routers and IoT gizmos you buy nowadays come with a notice about your rights under the GPL along with a link to a form to request source code.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago> The GPL has teeth. TiVo says it doesn't. . > Vendors are routinely sued over infringement. The GPL has never one time been successfully prosecuted. Never. Show me a single specific case.
- pxeger1 4y agoWhere is it in the user agreement? https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#4-license-grant-to-us https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... > This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. Charging $10/month seems like selling it. The only questions is whether it counts as your copyrighted content, if it's been chewed up by an AI.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]