Legal question: Releasing software anonymously?

[Binky]

Then lets play this. You wrote a library that detects faces and changes a persons hairstyle, you have put the sources free on github.
I am an evil app dev that sells the great "change your hairstyle" app for 9.99$ in the appstore.
You think that i am misusing your code for it.

What will you do?

I'm still not sure I gather the implicit parts of this argument. You suggest that most small FOSS developers haven't the time, energy or money to legally pursue those contravening the terms of their chosen license. I think I agree.

What I don't quite understand is the implicit conclusions of the suggestion. Do you mean to say that:

• Private individuals should act as if they have no rights to their own I.P., because they are difficult to enforce
• Businesses and developers should act as if small publishers have no I.P. rights, because they're unlikely to be punished for violating them
• ...or something else?

There is an interesting philosophical debate to be had here regarding civilisation and the purpose of law, if you feel your point deserves to be supported by more than antagonism.

 

[HelenF]

I am an evil app dev that sells the great "change your hairstyle" app for 9.99$ in the appstore.
You think that i am misusing your code for it.

What will you do?

I can complain to the appstore and they might take it down. I can't easily stop you sharing it somewhere else, but you've probably lost a good chunk of your audience/income there.

 

[Phlyra]

And i explicitly use a distro that has a package repo that gives no **** either.

Which one?

 

[elw3]

@Binky youre overanalysing. I am just wondering how theory would turn out it practice.
Lets apply this to a other society _problems_:
Like the war on drugs, there are countries who waste enormous efforts in fighting drugs and those where it is legal.
Does their population have a different amount of drug misuse? Not really.
So who is profiting from the war on drugs? Dealers who can make higher prices and the police who has a secure employment.
In analogy i claim that the use of licences makes zero differences in the misuse of copyrightet material. It keeps however lawyers in business.
I sure wont conclude to tell ppl how to act on this tho. Whatever you do, its always wrong is my philosophy.

I can complain to the appstore and they might take it down.

But you only think i stole your code. You could also be wrong, you could ruin someones life with false claims here. Not that you would care, so you do it anyway.
So? Will the appstore pull it down without a proper proof? I cannot imagine that this is the case or else ppl would constantly try to get rid of competition that way.

 

[levi]

In analogy i claim that the use of licences makes zero differences in the misuse of copyrighted material. It keeps however lawyers in business.

There's a certain amount of this, for sure. (fixed spelling of 'copyrighted' while I quoted, fwiw). It's why in licenses I use I generally add a caveat to say that if you want to use this in a commercial project, talk to me and I'll look into relicensing it (although that becomes increasingly tricky as other people send you patches to your code with their copyright naturally on them). I don't usually care if people want to make their own money using my code, just happy that someone's using it.

 

[HelenF]

But you only think i stole your code. You could also be wrong, you could ruin someones life with false claims here. Not that you would care, so you do it anyway.

Yeah, I'm not going to do anything if I can't even prove it to my own satisfaction.

So? Will the appstore pull it down without a proper proof? I cannot imagine that this is the case or else ppl would constantly try to get rid of competition that way

The appstore probably won't get into checking the proof themselves. US-based services have the DMCA process, where they take it down first, then you can apply to get it put back up, and it's a crime for either of us to lie. But if you get it put back up, that's all unless I want to go to court, so up to you whether to risk that. It's probably similar in Europe.

In analogy i claim that the use of licences makes zero differences in the misuse of copyrightet material. It keeps however lawyers in business.

It's not zero, but you may be right that it's not effective. That's an argument against using the GPL and suchlike. On the other hand, putting a license on your code does make a difference to the amount of good reuse.

talk to me and I'll look into relicensing it (although that becomes increasingly tricky as other people send you patches to your code with their copyright naturally on them)

If you're taking patches, it's much easier to start with a license that allows everything you want to allow.

 

[PowerGod]

Oh you made this? It had a different licence before? I lied? Have fun proving that in court little ****.

Well, i think it will be something like if you buy a bike that was stolen... they just take it away from you and you'll lose your money, even if you didn't know that.

 

[FBnil]

An unmentioned thing about the license is cutting yourself free of liability. So for example, I downloaded this demo that had many displaymodes. One of those (14 bit color depth) physically made my monitor go poof. (fubar). Without a license (technically, an EULA), we are unprotected against people that use our free software, and get harmed by it. So if the Pyra does not come with an explicit text saying: Do not cross the street while looking at your Pyra, then you can be in trouble.

Do warranty disclaimers in software licenses carry any legal weight?

Most open source software licenses contain, in capital letters, the following disclaimer: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LI...

law.stackexchange.com

Software Disclaimer

Software Disclaimer. Protect your website or blog with our attorney-drafted Software Disclaimer. Immediate access 24 hours a day.

www.disclaimertemplate.com

THIS FORUM POST IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.

 

[PowerGod]

In my microwave warranty there is an explicit note that they are not responsible if you put your cat in it...

 

[Null]

In my microwave warranty there is an explicit note that they are not responsible if you put your cat in it...

This woman better hope that her microwave doesn't break.