Timeline for Can the GPL3 and MIT license be applied to closed-source software?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2023 at 1:25 | comment | added | gnasher729 | @supercat It would be a violation of the license. In this case, that would allow the copyright holder to sue themselves, which they are not going to do. Yes, GPL license by the copyright holder without the source code is stupid and useless, but the copyright holder is allowed to give you a stupid and useless license. The whole question was: Is it legal for the copyright holder to do something stupid and useless? Answer: Yes, it is. | |
| Nov 2, 2022 at 20:50 | comment | added | supercat | @Brandin: If someone distributes a work without conveying the most suitable form for making modifications to it among those forms the person possess, that would be in violation of the license, but in some cases a decompiled binary might in fact be the best form the person possesses. | |
| Aug 19, 2022 at 10:58 | comment | added | Brandin | @xabase6400 For the question about decompiling GPL source code, see this Q&A: opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7716/… The summary answer is "no" you are not allowed to redistribute decompiled GPL source code. GPL itself says that to redistribute it, you must provide the source code, defined as the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". A decompiled output does not correspond to that description. | |
| Aug 18, 2022 at 17:47 | comment | added | xabase6400 | Interesting. But in the case of either MIT and GPL, would end-users be allowed to de-compile and/or reverse engineer the software and thus legally distribute a derivative that is as close to the original's source code as can be? | |
| Aug 18, 2022 at 16:25 | history | edited | gnasher729 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 578 characters in body
|
| Aug 18, 2022 at 16:16 | history | answered | gnasher729 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |