* Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli <gnu...@cyberdimension.org> [2021-10-05 18:59]: > On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 11:05:58 +0300 > Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote: > > Let us say somebody provides Windows source under GPL on Internet, > > that does not make Windows source legally licensed under GPL, because > > author or copyright holders never licensed it so. It should be very > > clear to businessmen, but is not clear to programmers. > As I understand it it all depends on who is this somebody. If this > somebody is Microsoft, it would look legit. > > If not, it's crucial for most project to stay as away from leaked > source code as much as possible, because as I understand, just reading > it increases the legal risks too much when the person having read it > contribute to project that are too similar.
Maybe the example was not good enough. Imagine company ABC provides Windows source code under GPL. We better not assume that recipient need to know that company ABC is not authorized for that. World is large. I have seen McDonalds Restaurants that are not authorized or run by McDonalds franchise, clearly fake and copy. They run and work in Sicily, Italy. There are companies that name them "Microsoft" while they are not. What we do, we assume, if we have got this software from Internet, and distribution tells me it is free, than it is free software. Reality in business is quite different, issues ARE brought to courts and there are no excuses. Distributions don't conduct enough due diligence, and users or downloaders even less. We are just lucky due to large number of free software being on one heap, it is not intentional that we don't get too many problems with it. Though such court cases are there. > It's also up to the distributions to choose how they deal with legal > issues. For instance different distributions dealt differently > with software patents. And it is also up to the user to verify it. If you give me software and you say it is free, but you are not the author, then if I wish to do something with it, I better verify it from several third parties. And if there is no reference, I may not have any chance to verify it. This would make me liable in the court of law. I say, we are just lucky. > As with the DMCA, the issue is also how to verify the claims that are > inside. For instance youtube-dl that as far as I know is fully free > software also got a DMCA takedown notice. Personally I am unable to verify if software is free. Time does not allow it. There is no mechanism to ensure it. It is all based on trust to people that I by large don't even know. It is same type of trust just as users of non-free software. > > That would not establish chain of legalities. That would mean if you > > find software anywhere, you would just believe that it is licensed > > under free license Z, just because you find it. > Not really. If a manufacturer like Samsung releases source code on > opensource.samsung.com, I can reasonably believe that it was released > by Samsung. And archiving that will gives even more assurance to people > that it's the case once Samsung removes the files[4]. That is different case where you can establish relations. So in that case you do quick relationship test and you can reasonable believe it. But what in case of allegation, you cannot anymore prove where you got it from?! If I have got a non-authorized software in my hands and author claims it was not authorized, it is infringement or similar allegation, I can tell "I got it from server ABC with GPL license and I reasonable believe..." -- but court will disregard that most probably and I have to stop what I am doing and most probably pay damages. -- Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/
