On Thu, 06 Jun 2024 03:33:53 +0100, "Peter J. Philipp" <[email protected]> wrote: > > This isn't about Patents, this is about Copyright. And that's the sole > interest of mine, and Lawyers are there for a reason. It should interest > OpenBSD in one form or another since i used the same Copyright and License > as them, if the outcome may be that the Copyright does not protect my works > and its license then there is no need to retain a license at the top of every > source file at all.
I do not understand how you plan to prove that someone infringed on some part of your code by removing copyrigths from it and selling it. Especially if the result is binary and the copyrights are comments in the source code. > Again, like I said, all I have to go on is hearsay, and I'm looking for a > mistake that the entity did indeed change the license and copyright of the > original source code. If they did that mistake, then I got them. And they > will be sued. > > This should also be interesting to the GNU open sourcers because as far as > their "Copyleft" is concerned it has come to my attention that Artificial > Intelligence has been ripping off their code, stripping their licenses in the > process and making the final outcome theirs. If you're watching the scene, > programmers are suing. And rightfully so. > This door has already been opened, and the most notable case I suppose is that Linux developers took some code from BSD and put GPL on it: https://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=117572345902445&w=2 Anyway, I have seen more than once when someone puts components under a different OpenSource license and relicenses them under something else. The last example that I've seen is bzip3: https://github.com/kspalaiologos/bzip3?tab=readme-ov-file#licensing -- wbr, Kirill
