If anyone was interested in making a properly free CS:GO, they probably should avoid reading this post as it seems to show the leaked source.
> Please note that this code is property of Valve-Software and any contributions that you make are considered a donation into the public domain.
So really in the modern era no copyright intended really is a message to the artist/label saying it's a fan video, they're not trying to impersonate the official one and asking for it to stay. The uploader might not know that that's what they're really asking but credit to YT for making this arrangement work to preserve some of the site's original culture.
If it's allowed the message is irrelevant, and i it's not allow it's also irrelevant as it will be ignored and the video removed.
Nonetheless, clean room RE is not a legal requirement: certainly not in the EU, nor AIUI in the US.
The EU allows reverse engineering for interoperability. The EU allows reimplementations of APIs (as does the US). The EU also explicitly allows decompilation, where necessary.
Edit: I was wrong, I found the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Programs_Directive
> (Art. 5). The legal owner of a program is assumed to have a licence to create any copies necessary to use the program and to alter the program within its intended purpose (e.g. for error correction). The legal owner may also make a back-up copy for his or her personal use. The program may also be decompiled if this is necessary to ensure it operates with another program or device (Art. 6), but the results of the decompilation may not be used for any other purpose without infringing the copyright in the program.
Licences, to many people, are the domain of really fucking boring crusty nerds.
If they use a licence, they just throw WTFPL on it and call it a day like me.
What’s the worst risk? Someone in America sues me? Big deal.
Free software movement abuses the copyright system to prevent anyone from “owning” the software and putting a fence around others' work when greed tells it's suitable to do so. It has no intention to support its existence. As people only have that mediocre system today, and believe in it, it is used as a tool to partially formalize something from a different sphere of values.
It does if they want to use his code for anything. The parent commenter is also clearly making the point that his efforts are to be used by people who share the same sentiment of "fuck copyright". Which I think is a noble perspective, since IP laws in the US are much more bad than good.
This is an open source code. It is not compatible with widespread economical system, but it is not any less open.
Open source is by definition legal to modify and spread. There is a number of open source compatible licenses.
Leaked source is just that. Leaked.
I always thought that "open source" has nothing to do with what's legal and what isn't, it just means that anyone can materially access the code.
So what is it if not "open source" on the scale between closed and open? "Half-open source"? "Leaked source" only refers to the way the source has initially began to be distributed, not whether it's open/closed right now.
I see, never heard of that term. Still wish there was a term that encompassed all software that has publically available source code. I thought "open source" was it. The literal meaning of the term aligns so beautifully with it.
Like, you wouldn't call a pirated movie "free". I mean, it is, but only by violating copyright law.
Free isn't a synonym for good or legal.
If something is “free” that means that you can get it legally without paying.
If something is only “free” by circumventing law, then that’s theft.
The common way it is understood should probably be named "libre source" or something, because it means more than that the source is just out in the open.