They’ve broke so much laws, do you think they really care about this?Licenses exist, you know.
They’ve broke so much laws, do you think they really care about this?Licenses exist, you know.
So? Atmosphere is open source. Anyone can use it.
Open source doesnt mean anyone can do whatever they want with your work.Someone with some sense..
Open source doesnt mean anyone can do whatever they want with your work.
Atmosphere is open source under a GPLv2 license. Which means that SX OS is in violation of the license agreement as they do not provide sources.
Huh. Whelp, ok then
*Jumps on the sx os hating bandwagon*
So here's the thing: Licenses have been fought over in court, even for free open source software. Those that profit while violating terms don't come out well.They’ve broke so much laws, do you think they really care about this?
Just cause it's open source doesn't mean you can sell it without credit, source or without a license.Shhhht it’s already too much for them
They only have one neuron :/
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/gplall distributed copies (modified or not) carry a copyright notice and exclusion of warranty (Section 1 and 2)
Just cause it's open source doesn't mean you can sell it without credit, source or without a license.
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/gpl
https://github.com/Atmosphere-NX/Atmosphere/blob/master/LICENSE
...but it's a pretty splash screen?!I'm merely presenting this, I believe TX said they wrote their OS 100% , this contradicts that. When you buy TX, you're getting modified atmosphere code with a splash screen etc.
....When you buy TX, you're getting modified atmosphere code with a splash screen etc.
Assmosphere isn’t finished in the first place.No you're not, Atmosphere doesn't load backups.
Not really, no.They’ve broke so much laws, do you think they really care about this?
GPL FAQ said:Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? (#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic)
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
No you're not, Atmosphere doesn't load backups.
Is it proof? I'm not much of an expert to say similar is proof enough that someone else's code was used but without TX's source code, I'm not sure this is confirmation.
Just gonna leave this here...https://t.co/rv1e1czlTJ pic.twitter.com/BipbBqHKAz
— Mike Heskin (@hexkyz) June 28, 2018
Seeing as I'm a dev professionally, and have been involved in a similar case: Nope.~REMOVED~
Can I get a noob-level explanation
hbloader has a string in it that was stuck in there a while back. Not sure if just to be funny or for purposes of identifying stolen code, but that same string is in the SX work. Therefore, stolen.Can I get a noob-level explanation
It literally has the hidden easter egg from HBL:Can I get a noob-level explanation
Do you mean to tell me that you're thinking seriously of building that way, when and if you are an architect?