for historical reasons I have released full code to the once shareware version of Raster Master. This includes the additional utilities included with registered version(screen clip and command line converter). Updated code to work properly in 256 color mode when in DosBox. also added Bin2Bsv.
I don't think anyone, let alone the "law", are going to care about a some old DOS shareware open-sourced voluntarily by its original creator, just because he didn't include a license.
Maybe if someone steals the code and goes on to make bank writing the next hot new DOS app...
Where do you live that your police are so incredibly well-funded and organized enough to pursue these kinds of trivialities? Because mine are still trying to cover their ass after failing to respond to an armed break-in where a woman was murdered in her home by an angry ex who was seen stalking her outside for hours before it happened.
When I was a kid I once uploaded some paid software on an online bulletin board... and then freaked out thinking an unmarked van would show up and haul me away. News flash - that never happened.
Yes, laws are only as good as their enforcement. And there are many unjust laws out there (like copyright). Since their enforcement is so weak, it is as if they don't exist.
Further, assuming you live in a common law society and intellectual property violations aren't strict liability, there are a lot of factors around precedent and whether anyone parties were actually hurt. In the United States I doubt merely copying the source code would even be considered criminal, unless you happen to land charges in the most zealous district with the most zealous prosecutor on the planet.
.. yes, seriously? in my country the "default" sanction for copying software unlawfully is three years of prison and a 300000€ fine. Just because the source code is online does not mean that you have the right of even looking at it - last time I read GitHub TOS the only specific rights GH mandated is what they need for allowing the "fork" feature to work in the Github UI (not even as a "git clone" fork) or something like that.
> IP laws are toothless wastes of time, anyway. Information wants to be free, so fucking let it.
sure, I absolutely agree. It does not mean that people doing the git clone aren't at risk - who knows whether OP wasn't going to start sueing people for using their software unlawfully in a year or so ? there definitely have been worse schemes
No. Copyright law says that only the author of a work is allowed to make copies, and a few other things such as make a public performance, etc. For you to be allowed to make a copy, change the code, transforming it (as in compiling it), you need permission from that author to do that. Another word for “permission” is “license”. That’s it; that’s how it works.
I don't think there's a judge in the country that wouldn't let it slide if you present this piece of evidence:
"for historical reasons I have released full code to the once shareware version of Raster Master. This includes the additional
utilities included with registered version(screen clip and command line converter). Updated code to work properly in 256
color mode when in DosBox. also added Bin2Bsv."
Judges aren't law-applying machines. They understand nuance and intent.
Agreed, but the exact written word does matter. Technicalities have consequences, sometimes regardless of intent. You seem to be arguing that it was pointless to even give a license to the code, since it was somehow obvious what he meant? Well, the author has now added an MIT license to the code, so the point is moot.
Your confusion is understandable, and, regrettably, quite common.
Many license documents you are likely to encounter are written as if they were a list of things you can not do; as if they were some sort of contract which you agree to (somehow without signing it). This is very misleading, since a license is a list of permissions, not prohibitions. However, is in the interest of most license writers to mislead you in this way, so that they can keep the maximum rights for themselves and scare you into thinking you have as few rights as possible. The frequently-used term “license agreement” is a symptom of this; it is misleading because a license is not an agreement. It is also often the case that such documents prohibit many things which you have the right to do, but which a license (being a list of permissions and not a contract) can not deprive you of.
Finally, some licenses, such as the GPL, may seem to follow this pattern superficially, but what they list are instead conditions which you must uphold if you are to recieve the permissions granted by the license. Crucially, the document does not try to prohibit you from doing anything which is your right even if you do not comply with the conditions set by the license.
