03-01-2015, 10:29 AM
Well, it would be legal for someone to redistribute the binary without the source so why not distribute it without the source? This is why the GPL is so complicated, avoiding loopholes like this.
Source-less MIT license?
|
03-01-2015, 10:29 AM
Well, it would be legal for someone to redistribute the binary without the source so why not distribute it without the source? This is why the GPL is so complicated, avoiding loopholes like this.
Thanks given by: PCPlayerLV , Francisdaumb
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Messages In This Thread |
Source-less MIT license? - by xoft - 03-01-2015, 04:59 AM
RE: Source-less MIT license? - by NiLSPACE - 03-01-2015, 05:05 AM
RE: Source-less MIT license? - by DiamondToaster - 03-01-2015, 05:08 AM
RE: Source-less MIT license? - by xoft - 03-01-2015, 05:36 AM
RE: Source-less MIT license? - by worktycho - 03-01-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: Source-less MIT license? - by bearbin - 03-01-2015, 10:24 PM
RE: Source-less MIT license? - by sphinxc0re - 03-01-2015, 10:30 PM
RE: Source-less MIT license? - by bearbin - 03-02-2015, 05:45 PM
RE: Source-less MIT license? - by sphinxc0re - 03-02-2015, 07:42 PM
RE: Source-less MIT license? - by FakeTruth - 03-03-2015, 03:24 AM
RE: Source-less MIT license? - by bearbin - 03-03-2015, 05:34 AM
RE: Source-less MIT license? - by FakeTruth - 03-03-2015, 08:33 AM
|