>download a FOSS program >change the UI >make it closed

>>56329691
>What's to stop anyone from doing this?
The GPL.

>>56329691
Literally nothing, there are some examples. Unless you make literal billions on that no one would sue you even.

Nothing, it's done all the time.

How do I decompile closed source software? :^)

>>56329705
It's closed source, how can you prove it uses another guy's code?

>>56329749
if it operates the exact same way and is described to be very similar to said open source GPL program, someone is going to accuse you of stealing eventually. Especially when they manage to decompile it.

It totally fine for the majority of permissive licenses. It can be done with the GPL but if discovered, then you have a bunch of neckbeards breathing down your neck.

>>56329781
>implying they can decompile it

Windows still hasn't been decompiled. You can't decompile SHIT.

>>56329830
You think people aren't trying now and haven't tried before? It takes a lot of work to decompile software and microsoft went the extra mile to make it very difficult.

>>56329749
If you've done such extensive UI changes that a human won't immediately notice, the easiest way is to just search the binary for strings. Large binaries are full of strings, constants, filenames, prefixes, etc.

Decompilation is also feasible. It doesn't matter if the decompiler produces an uncompileable mess, it's still enough to compare code.

>>56329830
No but the machine code can be compared. If they manage to figure out what compiler and optimisation level you are using it can be pretty clear whether or not it is plagiarised. The Chinese steal GPL source code all the time, but in any country that cares about copyright law the risk isn't worth it.

Alternatively just steal BSD licensed code. That's what Apple did.

>>56329941
>steal BSD licensed code
>steal

A large amount of FOSS fanboys are actually more aligned with Microsoft's Shared Source licenses than with GPL/BSD.

If you don't like:
>people copying and closing BSD software
>people forking GPL code and not contributing back
>people profiting off of any of the above
then you prefer Microsoft licenses and not FOSS

>>56329691
the fact that 99% of FOSS is shit

>>56329691
There's like 6 paid PPSSPP clones on the Play Store and all the reviews are about how much better than PPSSPP it is.

Suppose that Oracle blatantly steals something that Richard Stallman wrote in his basement while eating toe jam. Would he even be able to take on Oracle's army of lawyers to defend the GPL?

ladies and gentlemen I bring you the program of multiple violations

>make a small unix program to do task A, about 300 lines
>EACH line of code is taken from all different implementations of this program under a different license, including non-gpl compatible ones while being made to work with one framework
>distribute it under CDDL, also non-gpl compatible
>claim all copyrights to me, do not credit others
>everyone uses it without notice

>>56332274
That's like the aids of licensing

>>56329830
Not even Microsoft knows how Windows compiles, it's black magic. Decompiling it would be incredibly difficult.

>>56332184
When the FSF took on Cisco, they were represented by the SFLC.

>>56332447
witnessed

>>56329997
>A large amount of FOSS fanboys are actually more aligned with Microsoft's Shared Source licenses than with GPL/BSD.
They are not FOSS fanboys then because MS's license is not FOSS.

>people forking GPL code and not contributing back
What is this supposed to even mean?

They actually did catch MS once with some shitty cd copying software I think.