Also note how legal documents say "the product, hereby meaning the executable and data files as delivered via installation media etc.". This is why all sources also include the copy-paste, where mere act of removing it constitutes violation.
Lugaru meaning license#
If you go through GPL license you'll notice the clause that the project must be redistributed with license copied verbatim. I hate to play devil's advocate in such cases, but was this distinction properly noted? It is definitely on blog post, but is that applicable? I don't know. They're not complaining that someone is selling their GPL code, they're complaining about them selling their not-GPL art. It would be perfectly legal if they'd used their own artwork instead of reproducing the art from lugaru. It's all fun and games until real money is involved. And if you don't have proper legal backings, it's very easy to lose everything over a single scam. Once you are involved in real money, people will try to scam you, whether you are a provider or just mediator. This is also a fair warning to people wanting to do online business.
And sadly, people have been scammed out of much bigger deals due to fine print. Regardless of what communities say, this really is the case where only lawyers have the last word. Lots of bad karma, but not necessarily strictly illegal.Įither way, this is where one unleashes the hounds, aka the lawyers, to go over all licenses with a fine comb. And unfortunately for authors there is often nothing illegal going on. With the ease of app store, this type of behavior just got much more lucrative. It did happen to Firefox and various video utilities. In the past, given the effort of packaging and distributing, few chose to do it. Many do allow resale as long as source is made available. The problem in some other cases was in misinterpretation of what GPL or similar licenses mean. Turns out that in many cases there is nothing illegal about it. There have been many similar stories floating around recently.
0 kommentar(er)
