Comments by "p11" (@porky1118) on "WTF Winamp" video.

2:10 I think, if it's only internal, it's a mess. If I have a personal project, and then decide to publish some component, I clean it up and put it into a new repo as a library, which is then very clean.
5
7:55 My approach: I just don't license my stuff. That means I still own it. And if anybody else uses it, it's technically illegal.
1
4:55 I have to make a fork!!!
1
@demoncorejunior I'm glad I didn't. Later in the video I saw it's already allowed by now.
1
6:45 There's one thing I understand about licenses: It's a weird concept that it's not allowed to use your stuff by default until you allow (license) somebody to use it. This is only possible because of governments or other institutions to enforce this.
1
@MNbenMN The point is that you're legally not allowed to use my lunch if I don't explicitly allow you. But I think this shouldn't be the case if you just make a "copy" of my lunch as long as it's technically possible for you without damaging it, stealing it or physically hurting me, that should be totally fine. You probably can't make a full copy, but you might be able to make a partial copy by making a photo, which copies the look only. And even if you have an automatized lunch copying machine, which almost doesn't cost anything and the result is the exact same lunch, I don't think it makes sense to call it stealing. The only case where I consider copying to be a bad thing would be if you open my lunch box by force. But even in that case, the problem isn't the copy itself, but that you opened it by force in order to copy it.
1
@MNbenMN I tried to be clean with the sandwich example. You don't need my permission to copy my lunch. As soon as I open the lunch box myself, you can at least make a photo. And similar, as soon as I upload something to public, you can copy it. As soon as you view something online, it's already a copy. It doesn't affect the original data. So it doesn't harm anyone nor damage the original data.
1