Take open source code

>take open source code
>use the code to make a close sourced program, including the open source code
What stops people from doing this?

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
google.com/search?q=gpl lawsuit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

but no one will know I took the code if I close source my program..?

If you sell it to another company, it will have to be audited. If they find out, they will disown you or force you to re-write it.


If you are your own company by yourself, then theres no issue. When there's another person involved, liabilities exist.

Java allow you to decompile it almost to the source code. Close enough to say that it is stolen. Revert obfuscation isn't more complex than that.

It's completely ok with some open source licenses like MIT, BSD and ISC.

Even with GPL you can do it as long as you're not distributing it to third parties or run it as a service platform.

If you want to distribute binaries of modified GPL code you'll have to obfuscate it heavily or some neckbeard -will- find out one way or the other and you'll end up in court with the demand to end distribution or compliance with the license. Depending on your business it may be a too much of a financial risk.

implying gnutards actually have money to sue

Nothing, why should it?

>tfw Samba is a giant mess now since Apple stopped helping, since they moved to GPLv3 to block Apple's use.
>tfw GCC is going to shit as Apple, Google and more dumped it for LLVM after GCC moved to GPLv3 to prevent those companies using it.
>In both instances, corporations were providing the majory of the code.

If you push out the major corporations, who are the ones actually providing most of this code in the first place, your large OS project will die.

This is a HUGE part of the reason Torvalds won't allow Linux to migrate from GPLv2 to GPLv3 - it would END linux as we know it.

>find a painting that has been published
>trace it, but re-colour it a little bit
>sell it as my own

What's stopping anyone doing this?

The FSF certainly does.

>stops
>implying it doesn't happen all the time

If you suspect that a closed source program might be using your code based on its behavior, you can compare the binary with a compiled version of your code. Unless they massively rewrote your code, there's going to be matching binary segments which is a dead giveaway.

Terrible analogy. Paintings are not open source.

B-but I should be able to do this! The GPL totally sucks you guise!

>What stops people from doing this?
Copyright law
google.com/search?q=gpl lawsuit

Which is why GPL is the cuck license and MIT actually gives you results.

The same thing that stops people from reverse engineering a closed source program and using it to make another closed source program. Copyright law.

>kill a person
>leave no evidence
What stops people from doing this?

The answer is: nothing, but good luck leaving zero evidence.

Isn't Android essentially this? Don't they add a lot of proprietary software on top of aosp?

Nothing and probably happens often.

Nothing, see apps on Play Store.

>What stops people from doing this?
Nothing, I do it often. Sometimes for profit. The likelihood someone is going to compare your binaries is low and even if they do, without a reproducible build setup it's unlikely they'll have a high enough confidence to say that it's the same source base.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits

It's not illegal to add proprietary software if it has a separate license
Also android isn't using GPL

only a few in like 30 years of its existence?

>Nothing, I do it often. Sometimes for profit
Sure you do

Interesting problem I had:
I was working on a project I would have been more than happy to open source, but I was using Unreal Engine which is closed source. I couldn't directly use GPL program because I would have needed to opensource the UE.
My solution was to make my game launch the GPL program as a standalone API my game would use.
I had an extensive read of GPL because back then I wanted to publish my work and from what I understood, it was basically ok to do that.

>Take random GPL licensed app.
>Literally don't change anything except putting ads in.
I don't get why the original authors don't report them to Google and the FSF though.

if you're using it internally, there's no issue
the GPL comes into play when you're distributing the program, and people will find out if you're big enough to matter

and if you're not big enough to matter, who fucking cares anyway

iirc, even just passing data over stdin/out can be considered linking if it's deep enough (eg, you're passing internal data structures to the gpl'd program)

samba has been a giant mess since day one.

Yup, I'm a chef at Wendy's, and I sold them their POS software, which I stole from an open source project, for 300k a year licensing fee. Shit is so cash.

tl;dr absolutely nothing is stopping you, it's borderline impossible to prove unless you have stolen source code from that company proving the infraction, which would be illegal anyway.
I've only ever heard of 1 case of a gpl battle going to court and winning.

BRB reporting Wendy's to the FSF.