zlacker

>>heshie+(OP)
"Even if I believe that what I'm doing is morally correct and legally protected, legal processes still have a financial cost. I can't afford to take on that financial risk for something that I do in my spare time to help others." - this is very logical and exactly what I would have done but it still makes me very sad that this is the way the world works right now :(

>>jonoc+G9
The process is the punishment. Average Joe cannot go toe-to-toe in the legal system as it stands right now. The one with the most money nearly always wins, and - as in this case - the threat of financially ruinous litigation is enough.

>>all2+vb
And the solution is to nerf copyright into the dirt like you'd nerf an overpowered item in a game.

>>ronsor+Ob
Are you aware that copyright law is the foundation of FOSS licenses?

>>AceJoh+rg
You wouldn't need it if copyright didn't exist in the first place

>>jimnot+Ah
> You wouldn't need it if copyright didn't exist in the first place

No popular open source license that I am aware of attempts to emulate a no-copyright situation:

If there was no copyright, you could not force anybody to provide the source code of any derivative work (situation for copyleft licenses). On the other hand, in a no-copyright situation, you are not able to sue anybody who attempts to reverse-engineer such a derived binary blob and publish the reverse-engineered source code.

Thus, an open-source license that attempts to emulate a no-copyright situation would in my opinion have clauses like the following:

- you are allowed to create binary-only derived works, and are allowed to sell copies of it

- you must not sue anybody who redistributes these copies (even for money)

- you must not disallow any licensees to reverse-engineer these executables

- you must not disallow any owner of a copy to create any derivative work (even using reverse-engineering techni, as long as this work is licenses under this license. This in particular means that, if you create a derivative work, you have to take care that you cannot redistribute copies that (statically) link the work with parts for which this is disallowed