3 ms·

So content creators should be happy that their content is being distributed online for free against their will, just as long as the author attributition is stil

So content creators should be happy that their content is being distributed online for free against their will, just as long as the author attributition is still intact?

icebraining 14y ago
No, but we have to accept it, much like the painter has to accept seeing the buyer of his painting burn it down. After you sell it, it's no longer yours.
- millstone 14y ago
  Do you just accept GPL violations? Once you've given me the source code, it's no longer yours!
  - icebraining 14y ago
    I accept them just fine if it's by someone who rejects copyright of his own works. I don't accept if it's done by hypocrites.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > Do you just accept GPL violations? It's hard to violate the GPL without plagiarizing.
    - millstone 14y ago
      I thought plagiarism was an issue of false attribution? If my product gives attribution to the original authors, but I do not release my source code, then I am in violation of the GPL, but I am not a plagiarist.
      - derleth 14y ago
        > I thought plagiarism was an issue of false attribution? Yes, that's precisely what I've seen people get annoyed about when the issue of copyright violation comes up. > If my product gives attribution to the original authors, but I do not release my source code, then I am in violation of the GPL, but I am not a plagiarist. I thought the GPL allowed binary-only distribution as long as there was a link or similar in the program to somewhere the source was available, but apparently not. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary "The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited."

3 ms·

So content creators should be happy that their content is being distributed online for free against their will, just as long as the author attributition is stil

by res0nat0r 14y ago

So content creators should be happy that their content is being distributed online for free against their will, just as long as the author attributition is still intact?

icebraining 14y ago
No, but we have to accept it, much like the painter has to accept seeing the buyer of his painting burn it down. After you sell it, it's no longer yours.
- millstone 14y ago
  Do you just accept GPL violations? Once you've given me the source code, it's no longer yours!
  - icebraining 14y ago
    I accept them just fine if it's by someone who rejects copyright of his own works. I don't accept if it's done by hypocrites.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > Do you just accept GPL violations? It's hard to violate the GPL without plagiarizing.
    - millstone 14y ago
      I thought plagiarism was an issue of false attribution? If my product gives attribution to the original authors, but I do not release my source code, then I am in violation of the GPL, but I am not a plagiarist.
      - derleth 14y ago
        > I thought plagiarism was an issue of false attribution? Yes, that's precisely what I've seen people get annoyed about when the issue of copyright violation comes up. > If my product gives attribution to the original authors, but I do not release my source code, then I am in violation of the GPL, but I am not a plagiarist. I thought the GPL allowed binary-only distribution as long as there was a link or similar in the program to somewhere the source was available, but apparently not. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary "The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited."