4 ms·

Without a licence, so nobody is allowed to use it, or even compile it.

by teddyh 4y ago

pdntspa 4y ago
There's nothing stopping you from typing git clone
- jcelerier 4y ago
  If you disregard counterfeiting laws, sure
  - pdntspa 4y ago
    Counterfeiting laws? Like, seriously? The guy placed the code online in good faith. He didn't follow "protocol" and attach a license, so what. IP laws are toothless wastes of time, anyway. Information wants to be free, so fucking let it.
    - jcelerier 4y ago
      .. yes, seriously? in my country the "default" sanction for copying software unlawfully is three years of prison and a 300000€ fine. Just because the source code is online does not mean that you have the right of even looking at it - last time I read GitHub TOS the only specific rights GH mandated is what they need for allowing the "fork" feature to work in the Github UI (not even as a "git clone" fork) or something like that. > IP laws are toothless wastes of time, anyway. Information wants to be free, so fucking let it. sure, I absolutely agree. It does not mean that people doing the git clone aren't at risk - who knows whether OP wasn't going to start sueing people for using their software unlawfully in a year or so ? there definitely have been worse schemes
      - oyashirochama 4y ago
        IP laws are only as valuable as the amount someone is willing to fight for them.
- teddyh 4y ago
  Except the law.
  - pdntspa 4y ago
    I don't think anyone, let alone the "law", are going to care about a some old DOS shareware open-sourced voluntarily by its original creator, just because he didn't include a license. Maybe if someone steals the code and goes on to make bank writing the next hot new DOS app... Where do you live that your police are so incredibly well-funded and organized enough to pursue these kinds of trivialities? Because mine are still trying to cover their ass after failing to respond to an armed break-in where a woman was murdered in her home by an angry ex who was seen stalking her outside for hours before it happened. When I was a kid I once uploaded some paid software on an online bulletin board... and then freaked out thinking an unmarked van would show up and haul me away. News flash - that never happened.
    - teddyh 4y ago
      Do you only care about the law if there is a risk of you getting caught?
      - pdntspa 4y ago
        Yes, laws are only as good as their enforcement. And there are many unjust laws out there (like copyright). Since their enforcement is so weak, it is as if they don't exist. Further, assuming you live in a common law society and intellectual property violations aren't strict liability, there are a lot of factors around precedent and whether anyone parties were actually hurt. In the United States I doubt merely copying the source code would even be considered criminal, unless you happen to land charges in the most zealous district with the most zealous prosecutor on the planet.
        teddyh 4y ago
        > Since their enforcement is so weak, it is as if they don't exist. Aaron Swartz Dmitry Sklyarov Peter Sunde Just from the top of my head.
retronick2020 4y ago
[flagged]
- teddyh 4y ago
  Nice.
Arrath 4y ago
Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't the lack of a license be presumed to be the most permissive state?
- teddyh 4y ago
  No. Copyright law says that only the author of a work is allowed to make copies, and a few other things such as make a public performance, etc. For you to be allowed to make a copy, change the code, transforming it (as in compiling it), you need permission from that author to do that. Another word for “permission” is “license”. That’s it; that’s how it works. I.e. no license – no permission.
  - Arrath 4y ago
    Thanks!
    - teddyh 4y ago
      Your confusion is understandable, and, regrettably, quite common. Many license documents you are likely to encounter are written as if they were a list of things you can not do; as if they were some sort of contract which you agree to (somehow without signing it). This is very misleading, since a license is a list of permissions, not prohibitions. However, is in the interest of most license writers to mislead you in this way, so that they can keep the maximum rights for themselves and scare you into thinking you have as few rights as possible. The frequently-used term “license agreement” is a symptom of this; it is misleading because a license is not an agreement. It is also often the case that such documents prohibit many things which you have the right to do, but which a license (being a list of permissions and not a contract) can not deprive you of. Finally, some licenses, such as the GPL, may seem to follow this pattern superficially, but what they list are instead conditions which you must uphold if you are to recieve the permissions granted by the license. Crucially, the document does not try to prohibit you from doing anything which is your right even if you do not comply with the conditions set by the license.
  - kbelder 4y ago

Without a licence, so nobody is allowed to use it, or even compile it.

by teddyh 4y ago

Without a licence, so nobody is allowed to use it, or even compile it.

pdntspa 4y ago

There's nothing stopping you from typing git clone

jcelerier 4y ago
If you disregard counterfeiting laws, sure
- pdntspa 4y ago
  Counterfeiting laws? Like, seriously? The guy placed the code online in good faith. He didn't follow "protocol" and attach a license, so what. IP laws are toothless wastes of time, anyway. Information wants to be free, so fucking let it.
  - jcelerier 4y ago
    .. yes, seriously? in my country the "default" sanction for copying software unlawfully is three years of prison and a 300000€ fine. Just because the source code is online does not mean that you have the right of even looking at it - last time I read GitHub TOS the only specific rights GH mandated is what they need for allowing the "fork" feature to work in the Github UI (not even as a "git clone" fork) or something like that. > IP laws are toothless wastes of time, anyway. Information wants to be free, so fucking let it. sure, I absolutely agree. It does not mean that people doing the git clone aren't at risk - who knows whether OP wasn't going to start sueing people for using their software unlawfully in a year or so ? there definitely have been worse schemes
    - oyashirochama 4y ago
      IP laws are only as valuable as the amount someone is willing to fight for them.
teddyh 4y ago
Except the law.
- pdntspa 4y ago
  I don't think anyone, let alone the "law", are going to care about a some old DOS shareware open-sourced voluntarily by its original creator, just because he didn't include a license. Maybe if someone steals the code and goes on to make bank writing the next hot new DOS app... Where do you live that your police are so incredibly well-funded and organized enough to pursue these kinds of trivialities? Because mine are still trying to cover their ass after failing to respond to an armed break-in where a woman was murdered in her home by an angry ex who was seen stalking her outside for hours before it happened. When I was a kid I once uploaded some paid software on an online bulletin board... and then freaked out thinking an unmarked van would show up and haul me away. News flash - that never happened.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    Do you only care about the law if there is a risk of you getting caught?
    - pdntspa 4y ago
      Yes, laws are only as good as their enforcement. And there are many unjust laws out there (like copyright). Since their enforcement is so weak, it is as if they don't exist. Further, assuming you live in a common law society and intellectual property violations aren't strict liability, there are a lot of factors around precedent and whether anyone parties were actually hurt. In the United States I doubt merely copying the source code would even be considered criminal, unless you happen to land charges in the most zealous district with the most zealous prosecutor on the planet.
      - teddyh 4y ago
        > Since their enforcement is so weak, it is as if they don't exist. Aaron Swartz Dmitry Sklyarov Peter Sunde Just from the top of my head.

retronick2020 4y ago

[flagged]

teddyh 4y ago
Nice.

Arrath 4y ago

Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't the lack of a license be presumed to be the most permissive state?

teddyh 4y ago
No. Copyright law says that only the author of a work is allowed to make copies, and a few other things such as make a public performance, etc. For you to be allowed to make a copy, change the code, transforming it (as in compiling it), you need permission from that author to do that. Another word for “permission” is “license”. That’s it; that’s how it works. I.e. no license – no permission.
- Arrath 4y ago
  Thanks!
  - teddyh 4y ago
    Your confusion is understandable, and, regrettably, quite common. Many license documents you are likely to encounter are written as if they were a list of things you can not do; as if they were some sort of contract which you agree to (somehow without signing it). This is very misleading, since a license is a list of permissions, not prohibitions. However, is in the interest of most license writers to mislead you in this way, so that they can keep the maximum rights for themselves and scare you into thinking you have as few rights as possible. The frequently-used term “license agreement” is a symptom of this; it is misleading because a license is not an agreement. It is also often the case that such documents prohibit many things which you have the right to do, but which a license (being a list of permissions and not a contract) can not deprive you of. Finally, some licenses, such as the GPL, may seem to follow this pattern superficially, but what they list are instead conditions which you must uphold if you are to recieve the permissions granted by the license. Crucially, the document does not try to prohibit you from doing anything which is your right even if you do not comply with the conditions set by the license.
- kbelder 4y ago