Have you thought about what if they paid not for the software but for the support?
Peter J. Philipp írta 2024. jún.. 6, Cs-n 15:29 órakor: > On 6/6/24 13:10, Kirill A. Korinsky wrote: >> On Thu, 06 Jun 2024 03:33:53 +0100, >> "Peter J. Philipp" <p...@delphinusdns.org> 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. > > Well the answer is two fold. One the entity who buys the source, may > advertise who they bought it from, who wrote it etc. Comparing the > objdump of that binary will have answers and cross-correlate to me that > certain functionality came from me. Also every unique DNS stack as a > signature, sorta like pf fingerprinting, I could find out from remote > without buying a binary if someone is using my technology. > > The second part is, if the entity who bought it, sues me for using > "their" source code. This will reveal all. I will have the Open Source > version until version 1.8 so far. And I will have a open core version > running also on Windows in later versions. Once that happens it will > come to a counter-claim that the actual copy of the plaintiff is the > scam sell. It is really hard for someone to pull this off though, > considering I have a history on github and CVS dating back to the days > of sourceforge. > > The company who bought the scam sell, really bought something worthless > because there is an open source version and possibly better than what > they have as time goes forward (in my perspective). > >>> 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 > > Interesting, > > -pjp > > > > -- > *** Random quote: Never believe anyone anything when they tell you > "not to worry about it", or "why do you want to do that?" *** -- --Z--
