>use GPL-licensed code in my closed source software>don't say anything>no one can look at my code to tell
>>107595443Just wait till you learn about crackers.
>>107595443Happens all the time. GPL is hardly enforceable and fsf only goes after major companies. Not to mention a lot of people don't understand what GPL actually stipulates and thinks everyone using their GPL code HAS to open source (they don't). So many people completely glaze over the line about source only has to be distributed to people you give binaries to.
>>107595443>make my website open source>people find security vulnerabilities in the code>instead of fixing them, they choose to endlessly exploit these vulnerabilities in order to make my life a living hell>i can't fix it because i don't know what the vulnerabilities areis this really the power of open sores?
If someone did that to my code we'd be able to easily know by it calling GEGL and GMIC. From what I understand legally their code can be closed but if they modify my code and post it online it must be open.The same could be said about other open source libraries being dependent. That is how people may know.
>>107595443nothin personnel, kid
this is standard practice at 99% of chink companies.
>>107595503So basically, as soon as your software is serious in any way, you get sued and have to care about the license.But if you are some nobody who produces nothing of valuey nobody cares.That's exactly what this is about, anon.The system is working as intended.
>>107595503>GPL is hardly enforceableGPL is the easiest enforceable license possible with plenty of precedences.Meanwhile any commercial custom bullshit license has to be interpreted by every court individually, and if you want to enforce it, you have to give reveal your source (otherwise, how do you prove that its yours?).I myself can go to a lawyer and enforce the GPL, there is no magic to that, everybody knows it and when someone breaks it, it is clear as day.You might even get a pro-bono lawyer.
