<!!!>
You're very fast to accuse someone of lying, a true sign of an intellectual.
Thanks for the compliment. Yes, I've successfully demonstrated that you don't seem to have any issues with lying, twisting facts, and not being entirely straightforward. Or do you wish to deny these statements?
Let me paint you a picture here since you maybe don't understand the written word:
If i find a broken car in the middle of the road, all rusty and dusty and I take it home and fix it and then try to sell it -> IS THAT CAR MINE OR SOMEONE ELSES?
If you find a broken car in the middle of the road, it doesn't automatically become yours.
It's still someone else's property. I'm not sure where you live, but this analogy gives off major "dodgy neighborhood in a big city" vibes. You know, the kind where you can't even leave your car unattended for a hot minute without risking losing it, or at least the wheels!
But this actually explains a lot. If you hold property rights in such low regard, it's not surprising that intellectual property doesn't get much of your attention either.
If i find an abandoned dog in a cardboard box and I take it home and it grows old with me -> IS THAT MY DOG OR SOMEONE ELSES?
Basically, it's the same situation as with a car. You're assuming the dog is abandoned, but that doesn't grant you the right of ownership. What if the dog is just lost, and the real owner is still looking for it?
/Once more, I'll skip a chunk of your text, which, imho, seems quite irrelevant or just a rehash of those wrong assumptions I've already explained for you./
So, let's make it clear once and for all.
The source code that I used as a base - WAS PUBLISHED ONLINE FOR ALL TO SEE WITHOUT ANY "LICENCES" - I took the source code and fixed it (made it useable).
Unless the REAL OWNER can come here and prove their ownership + forbid me from selling it I will not stop selling it.
And I'll explain to you once again, that's not how software licenses work. I don't know what you still don't understand. Even if you stumble upon the source code floating around on the internet, it doesn't automatically grant you the right to use it as you please.
Without a license, it defaults to "all rights reserved." You can read more about it here:
Is my code FLOSS just because it is published it on GitHub?, or simply read the GitHub help pages:
Licensing a repositoryYou're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.
If the source code in question WAS in fact owned by "phoenix gambling" it would not be able to stand still on github for over 3 years - phoenix would be able to take it down.
WHY DON'T THEY TAKE IT DOWN THEN???
Why on earth would they take down their own repository? Phoenix gambling (win5x) has made it abundantly clear why they made their source code public. But, you should understand that making source code public doesn't equate to giving up their copyright.
And if all this is not enough - here's a little trick we'll do.
I will NOT sell the base source code - I will give it out for free.
I will only sell updates for the free source code.
Does that work or am I not even allowed to sell 100% my own code, your Honor?
It's actually not a bad idea at all! I'm glad you're finally starting to understand. But there's a bit more to it. It depends on the specifics of your software's licensing. If the original code has certain open-source or free-to-use components, giving it out for free is typically fine, but selling updates or derivative works might be a grey area. It's not about not being allowed to sell your own code, it's about whether you can use the original code in that way. There are different kinds of software licenses, and I'm sure you're aware of that, which tell you what you can and can't do with the code. It all boils down to what the original author says and whether they're okay with it.
