91–100 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legitimately seems like a GPT-tier confusion. Just put all the somewhat-relevant words in a syntactically correct configuration and call it done.
Heh, it's like all those YouTube videos where someone uploads a song and the uploader puts "No copyright infringement intended" in the text description, sometimes with five or six exclamation marks just to really make sure they avoid the takedown.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Both of these terms are well described by the relevant organizations [1][2]. And "source the happens to be public" or "leaked source" does not imply any particular license. [1] https://opensource.org/ [2] https://www.fsf.org/
I mean, you're not saying that this project is "closed source" either, right? So what is it if not "open source" on the scale between closed and open? "Half-open source"? "Leaked source" only refers to the way the source has initially began to be distributed, not whether it's open/closed right now.
Like, you wouldn't call a pirated movie "free". I mean, it is, but only by violating copyright law.
> Some weird schizoid managed to grab both these codebases during his work on some 900th attempt of a HL2 VR project and his major goal was to have this circle leak it to the public and fly to his girlfriends house (also involved in the valve community) and kill himself and her. What the fuck? This is so weird.
I also had a chuckle when I saw the license
In a few days when valve lawyers knock on the door... he guys I said ALL DUE RESPECT, so its legal, its in the Geneva convention!!! https://youtu.be/Af-Id_fuXFA
The title says "open source" but then goes on to talk about leaked source. Unless a clean room RE was done, I don't think this can be called "open source". I want the thing in the title to exist, of course, but at best this seems like the sort of thing that won't be legal and free until we're all dead. If anyone was interested in making a properly free CS:GO, they probably should avoid reading this post as it seems t…
AssaultCube was a pretty good foss CS clone, no idea if people still play it though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a common 'copyright infringement NOT intended ALL rights belong to X' type of widespread misunderstanding of how copyright actually works, and it's why I'm convinced that if most people understood copyright they would think it was absurd.
The sheer amount of YouTube videos where people put that as a disclaimer so think it's fine is kind of shocking.
So really in the modern era no copyright intended really is a message to the artist/label saying it's a fan video, they're not trying to impersonate the official one and asking for it to stay. The uploader might not know that that's what they're really asking but credit to YT for making this arrangement work to preserve some of the site's original culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, you're not saying that this project is "closed source" either, right? So what is it if not "open source" on the scale between closed and open? "Half-open source"? "Leaked source" only refers to the way the source has initially began to be distributed, not whether it's open/closed right now.
"Leaked source" Like, you wouldn't call a pirated movie "free". I mean, it is, but only by violating copyright law.
Free isn't a synonym for good or legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That just means you have full and complete ownership, so you’re sharing non-open source, non-free software code, also known as proprietary code. That has literally no impact on corporations or their drones, whatever that means.
> That has literally no impact on corporations or their drones, whatever that means. It does if they want to use his code for anything. The parent commenter is also clearly making the point that his efforts are to be used by people who share the same sentiment of "fuck copyright". Which I think is a noble perspective, since IP laws in the US are much more bad than good.