Timeline for Is it possible to rewrite every line of an open source project in a slightly different way, and use it in a closed source project?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 11:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/ | |
| Jul 13, 2011 at 21:17 | comment | added | Chris Barry | I'm not whining about anything, I felt this poses an interesting question and am following it up to the extent that is possible within the network. OK, so you are saying that GPL code is not put up to learn from, but rather to freely execute an algorithm. This doesn't explicitly cover the situation of learning from the source, but is an interesting angle. | |
| Jun 28, 2011 at 12:22 | comment | added | Scott Whitlock | @Chris Barry: "And if it was not put up there to learn how it works, what for?" - the GPL license explains, "This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful...", and "This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License..." Somebody did something for the greater good and offered it for free, under the conditions that you have to do the same if you use it. You're free to take it or leave it. Really, stop whining. Would you prefer they'd never released it? | |
| Jun 27, 2011 at 22:24 | comment | added | Chris Barry | Yes, but if we decide that it is legitimate to learn from the original(the algorithm, not the implementation) then that should be OK. TBH I don't think I need any help with the implementation side of things, I just wanted somewhere to learn the algorithm. The code well commented so it should be a fine place to learn. And if it was not put up there to learn how it works, what for? Perhaps only to re use in other open source or non profit endeavours? | |
| Jun 27, 2011 at 9:41 | comment | added | Jack V. | Of course, posting on a public message board "I've just been looking at this code and now I want to copy it, is that ok", while not PROOF that you did so, is not exactly going to help you deny it :) | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 18:21 | comment | added | Scott Whitlock | @TRiG: "I don't know why you think that's funny." - Perhaps that's because you have no sense of Irony. ;) | |
| S Jun 24, 2011 at 17:47 | history | suggested | ErikE | CC BY-SA 3.0 | changed "here" to correct citation |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 17:47 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 24, 2011 at 17:47 | |||||
| Jun 24, 2011 at 17:29 | comment | added | TRiG | @Scott, I don't know why you think that's funny. You should cite your sources. And for someone reading links out of context, as people with screenreaders often do, "here" is useless link text. mardahl.dk/2010/11/22/i-dont-want-to-read-more-or-click-here | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 17:23 | comment | added | Scott Whitlock | @Nicolai Reuschling: lol :) | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 16:41 | comment | added | Nicolai Reuschling | Instead of writing 'here' you better name the author: 'Betsy Rosenblatt, Harvard Law School'. | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 15:22 | comment | added | T.J. Crowder | @gbjbaanb: It's up to Microsoft to prove you did, not the other way around, in most countries. Not that it matters, because if Microsoft sues you, you're screwed unless you can get a big firm to take you on pro bono. :-) And if you had access to the Word source code, odds are pretty good you already signed something saying you wouldn't write anything to compete with it anyway... | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 14:58 | comment | added | gbjbaanb | there's also the matter of proving it. If you looked at Word's source code, then wrote your own word processor... you're going to have a hard time proving you didn't copy anything. | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 13:59 | history | answered | Scott Whitlock | CC BY-SA 3.0 |