[lenerdenator]

Unless you don't copy the license terms, it's impossible to "steal" open-source code. That's... sort of the point.

[gryfft]

Many open source licenses levy restrictions upon the acceptable use of the software. Those restrictions may include attribution requirements, up to and including a requirement to include the license when redistributing the code; they may forbid using derivative works for commercial purposes; they may require the downstream project to utilize the same license. Open source is not the same thing as "anybody can do anything they want forever."

[tzs]

> they may forbid using derivative works for commercial purposes

The most widely used definitions of “open source” do not allow such a prohibition.

[stanac]

Yup, if we take OSI as defacto authority on open source definition

> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

https://opensource.org/osd

[lenerdenator]

> Unless you don't copy the license terms

[gryfft]

You edited your comment while I was replying, and merely copying the license does not cover many other possible restrictions.

[lenerdenator]

I didn't edit anything.

I did choose the wrong word, though. Comply, not copy.

[gryfft]

Well, if it's my memory at fault then I apologize. My memory of the comment I replied to didn't include the initial qualifying phrase with either word choice.

[DiabloD3]

So, by definition, you did edit it to change the typo.

[john_strinlai]

>So, by definition, you did edit it to change the typo.

their comment still says "copy". the comment you are replying to clarifies that they meant to type "comply", not copy.

since the wrong word is still there, 'by definition' they have not edited it.

[irdc]

Papermark is AGPL; Corgi must release all its changes.

[lenerdenator]

That means they're not complying with the license terms. Which would be stealing. Like I said it would be.

[galangalalgol]

Copyright violation is not theft. Your effort to create something that can be effortlessly copied conveys to you no property. Society deems it beneficial to grant a time limited monopoly on copying it to spur innovation.

[brookst]

You wouldn’t steal a car!

[skeledrew]

Stealing a car - or anything tangible - means... the owner is very literally deprived of the benefits of owning said car/thing. Can't really say the same for a copied pattern of bits.

[josephg]

Thats not what you said. You said "copy the license terms". Copying a license isn't the same as complying with one.

Though it looks like in this case they didn't do either.

[irdc]

So we're in violent agreement then?

[lenerdenator]

Brutally violent agreement. kicks shin, shakes hand

[exo762]

Copyleft is still a thing. Right to attribution is still a thing. Please, read about it and you will discover that there is a lot of nuance to the open-source code.

[samtheprogram]

It's really hard to not assume this is intentional ragebait.

A cursory look reveals they aren't complying. So, as you say, they are stealing. What's the point of this comment?