Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario
Can we assume this is true? I'm not sure. Rogers v. Koons showed that selling a sculpture based on a picture is infringement, but in this case, WFN is not selling anything (except an ad, which might be a point of contention). It's always the same ad, too, which seems to suggest that the money from that ad is not for commercial reasons, but merely to pay for web hosting.
|
So, you're saying that if I take code from Microsoft and put it into an open source library that's ok because I'm not gaining anything and Microsoft won't come after me?
I worded that poorly, gain isn't important it just makes it more bothersome to me. Passing off someone else's content as your own is the core problem.
And on top of any legal issues... It's just a slimeball move. Adam, you're being a slimeball. Stop it.