Is it true?

It never happened. But if you are really worried about that, you can use the apache licence.

I will often take GPL code, change it, then not tell anyone.

You mad freedom losers?

Based.
Chinks do it all the time anyway and no one cares.

That isn't prohibited. That is, unless you're distributing publicly. If that's the case, that's just illegal and if you're caught you'll owe damages. Why would I give a shit about the risks you take?

>you'll owe damages

Im poor, good luck suing me LOL

>I will often take GPL code, change it, then not tell anyone.
That's fine, the GPL allows that. It's your right, because fullfilling freedom 1 requires that.
Did you mean to say that you're distributing modified GPL software, without disclosing the source code?
>You mad freedom losers?
No, as long as you respect people's freedoms.
As far as I'm aware, copyright laws don't exist in China. So people DO care, but there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Of course not.

The GPL works around standard copyright's defaults. It would otherwise restrict the options users have to treat software as THEIR tool that they can investigate, modify and fix in a practical way.

Plus it's establishing a reciprocating in kind deal. Not offensive either, after all you used free software as a base for what you do, so you shouldn't be opposed to providing software to all if you deem it ready for sharing.

Absolutely permitted.

Only once you share it outside your organization you need to provide sauces.

>illegal and if you're caught you'll owe damages
Unless you fuck over a big company you will never go to court for GPL violations. You should see how many tantrums the emulation community throws when mini retro console producers steal their code. They can't do shit about it.

>Did you mean to say that you're distributing modified GPL software, without disclosing the source code?

Nah, I just use it for myself.

Absolutely

>Nah, I just use it for myself.
Then you're doing nothing wrong. The GPL doesn't forbid that.
Only the RPL (which is unrelated to GNU, and not considered a free software license by the FSF) forces you to do that.

I just slightly remix the GPL code so no audit can detect it lol. Basically I sell GPL software and make tons of $$$ lol and nobody can stop me!

Explicitly no problem under both GPLv2 and GPLv3.

You don't need to share sauces until you distribute the code externally. For the GPLv3 they also made it clear multiple times that you don't even have to accept the license to receive or run a copy.

Whether this matters at all is a matter of how copyright is handled in your place, but it should be clear that you don't really have to do anything to use or tinker with sauce on your own machine(s). Only once provide the software to other parties, you start being required to do it anything.

>Nah, I just use it for myself.

You're using the GPL as it's intended.
>Freedom 0: the right to run the software and use it for whatever purpose you see fit
>Freedom 1: to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Good job, we encourage you to keep doing what you're doing!

The FSF will not help with GPL violations, either.

Attached: retroarch_dev.png (775x245, 10K)

Amen! fuck the GPL rulesets. I say break the hell out of the GPL!

They will obviously not help. The FSF helps protect software that it holds the copyright to.
If RetroArch wants the FSF to help, then they must make it a GNU package and therefore transfer their copyright to the FSF.

This is precisely the reason why I refuse to attach any license to anything digital I shit out. Cue some retard every few months with a ticket "what license is this under? can I use this? where is coc?" to which only answer is can you compile it? run it? Then you can use it, as I can't really stop you anyway. Text files with legalese or about how one must respect pronouns of the end user do zero fuck all whether it works, it's just bureaucratic externality perpetuating utterly broken law which exists only because people are willing to self-cuck with it.

Oddly enough ambiguity of not stating anything is what scares lawyers most. They're ok with GPL because chimp outs are easy fix - simply release source for the OS image when freetards press you. Meanwhile when there is no statement, it's either copyrighted and illegal to use unless explicit permission is given, or public domain - nobody knows.

More specifically, FSF cares about visibility. Jumping at dlink or qualcomm to release their kernel mods. That's visible as fuck, because it involves millions of devices. Retroarch? That's niche as hell, nobody cares.

You don't have to transfer copyright to the FSF in order to make it a GNU package. But you can if you want them to enforce the GPL. However, it's unlikely the FSF will want to accept this program as GNU package, when that program's primary purpose is to play non-free roms.

>Oddly enough ambiguity of not stating anything is what scares lawyers most.
Ambiguity? If you don't state anything, default copyright applies, meaning you have no permission to do anything.

Which makes any organization a big fat target, of course their lawyers don't like that.

>ITT dumb kids who don't understand anything about the GPL
Go back to your videogame boards, kids.

You can just ignore those tickets, that's what I do.

That community could have banded together by now to hire a lawyer, but they won't because most of them have hoards of illegally downloaded roms that they don't want uncovered. That's what happens when you deal exclusively in a legal gray area.

Big corps now use CoCs to destroy your work

>You should see how many tantrums the emulation community throws when mini retro console producers steal their code. They can't do shit about it.
Is your company or organization based in China and you're not messing with anyone that has ties to the right places in the Chinese government, y/n?

Else you're probably either not safe or not on the world market for anyone else to notice very much.

Ambiguity lies in fuzzy attribution and distribution common to open source software. When a musician performs original song and sells only tapes, it's automatically copyrighted because it's unambigously theirs and access is limited. Bootleggers need to exert active effort to make a copy, and deprive musician of profit.

But when we're talking about bunch of files with code from a random anonymous account, published on a platform for everyone to see ambiguity arises around this intent, as it aligns more with something in public domain, as opposed to copyrighted and "under no circumstances to be copied" software as is the case with musician and bootleggers.

Things like this extend to various stuff on the internet, all the way down to anonymously authored memes. If the "its mine, I can sue everyone" held autismally as you think, anyone could just pick a meme, claim it's theirs, and go on suing spree. They can't because they don't have a firm stand about whether it's theirs, and even if it were, what was their intent on spreading the meme in the first place.

It something is published in public that in most places at MOST implies the right for private use, not modification & redistribution / commercial use / public performance / things and bits, from how I understand it.

There are of course still various things at work in various places that stop everyone from suing everyone. Most countries didn't make it interesting to go after small violations in terms of legal costs vs potential reward, both for political reasons and because the administrative / court system itself doesn't feel like dealing with "this dumb shit", really. However entities that employ a lawyer for good reasons like major organizations and companies? Yea, they generally have to worry about what they do.

>ambiguity arises around this intent, as it aligns more with something in public domain
Not really, copyright doesn't care about intent as long as you don't explicitly state "you are allowed to share this" or "this work is under the public domain".
>all the way down to anonymously authored memes. If the "its mine, I can sue everyone" held autismally as you think, anyone could just pick a meme, claim it's theirs, and go on suing spree. They can't because they don't have a firm stand about whether it's theirs, and even if it were, what was their intent on spreading the meme in the first place
archive.fo/WkTpt

> Not really, copyright doesn't care about intent as long as you don't explicitly state "you are allowed to share this" or "this work is under the public domain".
Public domain doesn't even exist in a lot of places, meanwhile that intent you say doesn't matter can very often equal a license for private use (just use). But it varies by country, which is why many of the international licenses like the GPLv3 seem so verbose and redundant.

>Public domain doesn't even exist in a lot of places
Yes, I know. That's why many people use the CC0 license instead of just dedicating their work to the public domain.
>meanwhile that intent you say doesn't matter can very often equal a license for private use (just use
That still means the software is propietary, as none of the freedoms are respected.

>Not really, copyright doesn't care about intent as long as you don't explicitly state "you are allowed to share this" or "this work is under the public domain".
That's why lawyers hate it. Copyright doesn't care indeed, but judges do. It's exactly as
said:
>It something is published in public that in most places at MOST implies the right for private use, not modification & redistribution / commercial use / public performance / things and bits, from how I understand it.

>archive.fo/WkTpt
That was the reference. He started only in 2010 after tshirts got printed. And he had to actually register the copyright to get a supportive claim for his pro-bono lawyer to run the racket and wave the claim. That's the ambiguity - he wasn't suing for 2 years, and the thing was widely assumed public domain like any other unattributed content, until it wasn't. Same can be done with code which "appears" to be public domain initially, though companies are much more careful about this than a t-shirt printing shop.

I understand that it's pointless and doesn't matter, is there anything else?

I like to call this the "who gives a shit" license.

Yes it kinda is. I always choose license based on what the project's uses are. If it replaces a proprietary product I always go with GPL so they cannot incorporate my improvements into their paid shit. If my code is something completely new that people would want to copy but not complex enough that they cant just implement it themselves if they want, it gets MIT or Apache2.

>waaa everyone i dont like is underage and plays videogames
have sex

what's that got to do with it? A license that doesn't cover patents allows a company to contribute code (perhaps covertly) to a project in violation of a company patent and then sue the project for the violation. Good way to shut down a MIT/BSD-licensed open source project. Apache 2.0 is a better permissive license because it doesn't allow that.

>Mac
authoritarian left

>Windows
authoritarian right

>BSD
libertarian right

>GPL
libertarian left

Why does every single one have a tranny CoC?

Why are you obsessed with trannies and CoCs?

I need to be loved

Attached: c1hU1Rj.jpg (583x616, 27K)

What's the joke here that Linux gets the big lock? I honestly don't get it.

>GPL communist
>can make personal revenue with it
>aka capitalizing without sharing

You're dumb OP.

It's a play on the word 'free'. Linux people express it to no end even though their license is the most restrictive of all the *nix systems

because he was right all along

Attached: Ted-Kaczynski.jpg (391x520, 46K)

meant for

Corruption of champions?

You forgot GNU.

This does not mean this at all, if the company "covertly" "contributed" what they did was have a private internal build - if a public release was made in binary form they would have to thank projects for their effort but if they don't release the source code it's not yours to read. Why is this so hard for you freedumb fucks, the point about the MIT/BSD/ISC licenses is we WANT companies to have private internal builds, realize it's easier to maintain this code in-tree then opensource their code which really wouldn't have made them much money in the first place. Just because the GPL taints everything it touches and has weird communistic ideals about software doesn't mean that is what everyone wants from an Open Source project. Also simply state your project is based in New Zealand, software patents are illegal there.

>I make the rules
You and what army? Copyright laws exist. If you violate them you will be forced to pay money at gunpoint. End of story.

/thread

>WANT companies to have private internal builds, realize it's easier to maintain this code in-tree then opensource their code which really wouldn't have made them much money in the first place.
Companies can have private builds with all version of the GPL (yes even the AGPL), you only need to release code if you distribute.
>muh communism
How the fuck is the GPL demanding payment (in code contributions) worse than pushover non-copyleft licenses? Do you like to work for free or something?

>
>

>fees
What did he meant by this?

>not even trying to hide your freetardism

Back when OS X did cost money, the leading 10 in version numbers had some people under the impression that OS updates cost money when it was only upgrades that did, just like with Windows.

They’ll just take a cut of whatever money you make in the future.

Found the cumbrain.

Personal computing was a mistake.

found the low test poltard

>Public domain doesn't even exist in a lot of places
[citation needed]

This is just sad. Go wank some more.

>those organizations don’t appear to really do anything
Redpilled

>installs linux
>NOOOOOO I'M BEING OPPRESSED

That's allowed unless you share it or sell it. Everyone does that

Imagine being a feminist and complaining about muh patriarchy and then shoving your CoCs down people’s throats. The irony is delicious.

The author is a fucking retard.

It's copyright violation. You may as well steal the code of the company you work at, and redistribute it as BSD code. Oh wait, you're an unemployed retard.

no u

>This is precisely the reason why I refuse to attach any license to anything digital I shit out
This is dangerous and stupid. The reason software licenses are a thing in the first place is to absolve yourself of liability and to provide no warranty to the person who gets your code. You can get fucked up pretty bad. You should use zero clause BSD or something.

This sounds like bullshit. Has this ever happened to anyone?

>You can get fucked up pretty bad.
Agreed, the ambiguity goes into all directions. Luckily, author can trivially remain anonymous whereas prolific user, not as much.

Attached: licenses.jpg (1200x1500, 309K)

Happens all the time with stuff a corporation which can lawyer up doesn't like. For instance GTA V mod tooling being curbstomped where the authors were "liable" for its usage for cheating.

Ironically, they posted all NO WARRANTY they wanted, no matter, they got fucked anyway. Meaning makes sense only on very superficial level between two equals in a court room. As a little guy, there's little to no benefit sperging NO WARRANTY, as you'll be held liable regardless.

>Big corps now use CoCs to destroy your work
GPL is coc-free license
This shit is used only BY companies in their team or the creator of the program in their GIT. If you do not like the author’s policy and why did they choose CoC, you can freely take his program and do community development|your GIT without CoC policy.