Welcome to dependency hell.
But then many packages are so trivial that they shouldn't even require a license.
Same goes for abandoned projects.
This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
61–70 of 110 posts
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#62Anything unlicensed should be treated as coming with a permissive license. If you care so much about protecting your IP, take the effort to write up a license or make it proprietary. I am aware that is not how it is now, but in my opinion that is how it should be.
The law says the exact opposite of this advice, it is a good way to get to know some lawyers though.
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#63It cannot be the responsibility of the distro packager to make sure the licenses of the software aren't lies. That's just not going to happen.
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#64This makes me wonder: has any judge ruled in favor of a plaintiff seeking compensation from people that used or redistributed software that he published on the internet for free without any copyright notice or disclaimer?
I was thinking the same. It being published on GitHub makes it especially difficult to claim damages for reuse, as I think it’s fair to say the very act of publishing to GitHub implies a desire to share the code. The real issue would be if the author decides they want to close source it later, updates the license, and then demands everyone stop using it.
> the very act of publishing to GitHub implies a desire to share the code.
No. Thats like saying the very act of sharing pictures online implies you want someone else to use them, or that printing your book and selling it somehow implies you want the world to copy it.
You share on GitHub because its a source control platform, and your code may be interesting to others. This does NOT mean that you are okay with someone taking the code and using it in their (potentially commercial) program.
That is NOT implied, and thats why licenses exist. You could even argue that, as GitHub has license detection etc. built in, sharing and reading code there should mean you are aware of licensing.
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#65Anything unlicensed should be treated as coming with a permissive license. If you care so much about protecting your IP, take the effort to write up a license or make it proprietary. I am aware that is not how it is now, but in my opinion that is how it should be.
You almost certainly do not want to have this, because countries like Germany have very strict copyright law. Youd end up having to check which law applies, from which country, etc.
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#66This makes me wonder: has any judge ruled in favor of a plaintiff seeking compensation from people that used or redistributed software that he published on the internet for free without any copyright notice or disclaimer?
I was thinking the same. It being published on GitHub makes it especially difficult to claim damages for reuse, as I think it’s fair to say the very act of publishing to GitHub implies a desire to share the code. The real issue would be if the author decides they want to close source it later, updates the license, and then demands everyone stop using it.
Uh, what. Just because something is available for public viewing does NOT mean you have an unlimited right to reproduce and/or modify that work in any way. In fact, in much of the Western world, the creator of anything and everything is automatically granted complete ownership and control over their work, and publishing it does NOT grant any rights to that work beyond viewing it. This applies to code, pictures, books/stories, videos, etc.
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can think of at least a few individuals who might support the idea that US jurisdiction is either the only jurisdiction that matters, or at least covers the 90% of the Earth at minimum. Let's see: 1. Kim DotCom 2. Julian Assange 3. Edward Snowden 4. Henry Kissinger 5. Meng Wanzhou The list goes on I imagine, those are just the notable ones from my lifetime.
6/7/8: brokep, anakata, tiamo. It's still early to tell but we may have to add Aleksey Pertsev to this list :/ > 3. Edward Snowden U.S. citizen being hunted for acts committed on US soil so as terrible as prosecuting them is, I don't see how it's relevant here. Other than that, yes, my point is we should not be normalizing and shrugging this off as "the way things are". Individuals and businesses are doing right in t…
Giving one counterexample is sufficient to refute a categorical rule.
Additionally, the fact that the code in question is hosted on GitHub (U.S.), a site owned by Microsoft (U.S.), and specifically how it came to be in Debian (U.S.) (started by Ian Murdock (U.S.) and assets held by Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (U.S.)) makes the U.S. an appropriate counterexample.
Russia (home of the author of the software in question, Stanislav Seletskiy) would also be an appropriate counterexample. Russia also criminalizes copyright infringement under some circumstances.
Both the U.S. and Russia serve as counterexamples to the idea that an action that "violates the rights of the copyright holder" is therefore "not a crime."
I was neither "deceptive" nor pushing "propaganda." Your anti-U.S. tirade and personal attacks on me are entirely off-topic.
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#68This makes me wonder: has any judge ruled in favor of a plaintiff seeking compensation from people that used or redistributed software that he published on the internet for free without any copyright notice or disclaimer?
I was thinking the same. It being published on GitHub makes it especially difficult to claim damages for reuse, as I think it’s fair to say the very act of publishing to GitHub implies a desire to share the code. The real issue would be if the author decides they want to close source it later, updates the license, and then demands everyone stop using it.
The Amazon package was on the front porch for like two hours... There was nothing that said it wasn't available to anyone outside the house. It's like they wanted us to take it.
A work with no license file is private by default, even if you can see it.
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#69Funny they specifically point to Gentoo. Gentoo, organizations hosting mirrors, and users are probably least likely of all to be affected by such a situation (binhosts aside) as gentoo only distributes the verbatim source for which the uploader (assuming same as copyright holder) has granted an implied license by way of publishing their work to github. It would be very difficult to claw back their intent to offer the code for public use given the context of a forum principally devoted to collaborative development of open-source works.
Also no clue why the author believes static linking or any technical means of linkage of the compiled binaries would be in any way relevant to distribution of the unlicensed source code. No doubt all of this work is unregistered too. Have fun arguing for actual damages caused by a clearly deliberate publishing and distribution of an unregistered work.
Re: This Program is Illegally Packaged in 14 Distributions
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking the same. It being published on GitHub makes it especially difficult to claim damages for reuse, as I think it’s fair to say the very act of publishing to GitHub implies a desire to share the code. The real issue would be if the author decides they want to close source it later, updates the license, and then demands everyone stop using it.
The Amazon package was on the front porch for like two hours... There was nothing that said it wasn't available to anyone outside the house. It's like they wanted us to take it. A work with no license file is private by default, even if you can see it.
Wrong. If the work were unpublished however then that would be a very different situation.