Take GPL licensed code and put it into my proprietary software

good luck catching me. Thanks for the code you freetard faggot

That's why you use variable name scrambler!

>not just copying the code body into your own functions
Plebeian

>variable name scrambler!
>takes out string literals
OP is a fucking moron

when was the last time someone actually sued over license disputes? i’m not talking huge google-oracle deathbattles, i’m talking some dummy on github

busybox is the best example

Never, since no one cares

There's usually no need to. Usually there is better software under non-GPL terms, so you don't even need to care.
Also, remember that the GPL only applies when you're giving out binaries to your customers - so it's alright acknowledge that your program is now GPL compliant, but not give out the source code to anyone since you're just a web service.

>implying strings would find variable names an a stripped binary
I wouldn't recommend doing illegal things if you know this little about not getting caught.
If the code is small enough to do that, you might as well just rewrite it. It's not going to be worth it to do this for something like busybox.
the busybox dev sued a bunch of people.

>what is encryption?

>illegal things
Copyright infringement isn't illegal. It's unlawful. There's a subtle difference.

>i’m talking some dummy on github
Nope if you're an average nobody your license is just a meme.
Plus even if you are important enough that the FSF will sue on your behalf, expect them to jew you out of any settlement
>No other developers, including original author Bruce Perens and long time maintainer Dave Cinege, were represented in these actions or party to the settlements. On December 15, 2009, Perens released a statement expressing his unhappiness with some aspects of the legal situation, and in particular alleged that the current BusyBox developers "appear to have removed some of the copyright statements of other Busybox developers, and appear to have altered license statements
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox

nigger.

Isn't running strings a violation of the license agreement of proprietary software?

>implying open sores is even worth stealing

Attached: 1517548830941.gif (228x180, 1.6M)

>break the law
>don't get caught
find a flaw

Attached: tumblr_p16wx1hb5y1qdkfodo1_1280.gif (700x700, 356K)

yeah, but not illegal

Hell, emitting them backwards or ROT-13 would stop most freetard "auditors".

Give it back, tyrone.

>decrypting then dynamically importing code at runtime
that's a pretty clever solution. It would require a considerable amount of extra reverse engineering to beat. If it contains DRM of some sort, then someone will probably find it while trying to create a crack.
>run strings on a proprietary binary
>hear the sound of helicopters in the distance
>police bust through door
>oh no

>implying this isn't common practice
GNU fags are cucks

except licenses aren't laws

GNU freetard fags are always getting btfo'd so it doesn't even matter

the flaw is nobody would buy it. why buy something somebody else is giving away for free?

The typical situation where this could happen is someone needing some functionality from a GPL library where no good alternative exists. The product is just built on top of some GPL stuff to save money.
I don't know how common this is because of how common the MIT/BSD license has become, though.

And then the cherry on top: cracking that encryption would constitute a copyright breach unto itself!

Attached: rubbing_hands.jpg (353x251, 50K)

Windows, Office, any other popular software with foss alternatives. If your shit sucks, people will not use it, not even for free.

>cracking that encryption would constitute a copyright breach unto itself!
no, that's not what copyright does. under the DMCA, breaking DRM would allow the implementer to sue you, but that's not copyright.
It's not like the people who create cracks care about this. it might not even be illegal in their country.
Libreoffice is shit because the only people who use it are normie students who can't afford software. Most of the people who are into free software enough to help develop or donate money would just use tex or markdown instead.

gpl is commie shit lying about freedom

>Find a flaw

>compiled object code matches known GPL'd object code
>syscall analysis and memory access patterns of known GPL'd libraries

gpl-violations exists as an organization and has done this many times.

>you can use my work, but only under these specific terms
>REEEEEEEEEEEE COMMUNISM

Attached: 1521352070716.jpg (480x602, 67K)

Make it yourself then faggot

This

gpl-violations.org/

>use GPL code in your proprietary product
>shitpost on Jow Forums about how shit open sores software is and that proprietary products are the only ones worth using because you can't trust unpaid developers to write quality code

Literally nothing, GNU deserves it.

Fuck off, Xing Ming Ching. Take MediaTek with you and get off my board. Even the fucking Pajeets understand software freedom.

Every chink software ever. You can clearly see this happening on android's play store.

There is a reason many people only upload closed source even tho they give the programm away for free and without ads, they just dont want their work be stolen by chinks

>it being possible to steal something given away for free
The mental gymnastics proprietary fags go through to justify themselves

I could understand this argument if it was soll me tangible and limited resource like food, but software isn't.

I'm sure many companies already do that.

He will eat u

Attached: ForkedSnivelingAmericanbittern-size_restricted.gif (240x180, 496K)

>get sued

Copyright is law.

>Some niggers disassemble your sheit
>Find that it is identical to GPL
>Sue you
>CIA forces you to show source code
>You haven't even changed the header that says about GPL

>Find a flaw
Nobody uses your software because it's proprietary and it is easy to do the same thing with gpl licensed libraries.

>what's 2+2? don't give me any of that "4" bullshit I want a real answer

not in china :^)