• @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2219 months ago

        You don’t follow the license that it was distributed under.

        Commonly, if you use open source code in your project and that code is under a license that requires your project to be open source if you do that, but then you keep yours closed source.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          59 months ago

          Probably the reason they’re moving to a Web offering. They could just take down the binary files and be gpl compliant, this whole thing is so stupid

            • lad
              link
              fedilink
              English
              49 months ago

              Yes, but if the code they took is not AGPL then this loophole still applies

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                39 months ago

                Yes, I meant more that AGPL was created to plug this particular loophole. As in, if it was AGPL, they couldn’t do this.

                • lad
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  That’s true

                  Although I personally am not a fan of licences this strict, MIT+Apache2.0 seems good enough for me. Of course, that might change with time and precedents like this 😅

    • Margot Robbie
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      And as I said there, it is utterly hypocritical for him to sell snake oil to artists, allegedly to help them fight copyright violations, while committing actual copyright violations.