this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
103 points (99.0% liked)
RetroGaming
19509 readers
200 users here now
Vintage gaming community.
Rules:
- Be kind.
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ironic that he says he understands licensing but doesn’t understand that, if you’re not a copyright holder, you don’t have standing to do anything about those violations. The Violations of GNU Licenses page states that if you see a violation, you should confirm the violation, collect as many details as you can, and then:
I remember reading about someone attempting to challenge that by suing for the rights that should have been conveyed to them by the infringer respecting copyright, but I wasn’t able to find anything on it. I did find references to people who were partial copyright holders being found to not have standing due to not having sufficient ownership to make a claim, though - see the outcome of https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html
And that't the crux of the issue. Stenzek doesn't actually understand the reality of licensing.
The reality is this - you can't do anything without a lawyer. Laweyrs cost money (pro bono isn't a thing in the copyright world AFAIK, but IANAL).
If he wanted to avoid this, then maybe he should've kept it closed source from the beginning. Chinese sellers on AliExpress couldn't care less about licensing anyway, so that way he'd have at least some protection.
IMO his course of action so far has been wrong.
What he should've done is this:
He could even go after Arcade1up legally if he raised funds, but that's not even worth the time if you ask me.
100% agreed. Nobody’s going to care about someone stealing his source code if they don’t know about it.