Originally posted by carewolf
View Post
The author needs to state his work has some kind of license. If he does not do so then it's still 100% "all rights reserved" copyright. That's how copyright law works in most places (like the USA).
If you take this code and try to upstream it, then upstream will laugh you out of the mailing list due to this licensing issue (i.e. you took code that isn't using a license so it is violating GPL, and you can't change license of it as it's not your work).
It's wildly unlikely that the author himself would actually prosecute anyone using his source, and also it's highly unlikely that FSF or similar will start a legal battle over this tiny proof-of-concept filesystem GPL violation, but it's still technically a violation.
The author isn't stupid. He probably wants to get paid to develop it further, or something, while not allowing people to take the code and run, so to speak.
I'll allow that, it's fine.
Comment