JohnEdwa

It means a GPLv3 project can use something licensed as CC BY-SA 4.0 by converting it to GPLv3, as is required. E.g using a CC BY-SA photograph as a background or a splash image in a program.
And while you technically can’t take the original, yeah, practically everything except “here is the image file alone in a folder” counts as modifying and a derivative work. Resize it, crop it, change a .png to a .jpg etc - all modify the original work.

CC BY-SA 4.0 is one way compatible with GPLv3.

It does mean that anything released under older CC SA licenses aren’t, so they can’t be used in GPL projects. And MIT isn’t compatible at all.

Helped you (and Valve) to save some bandwidth. But yes. If it requires a Steam account to play, you bought a license allowing you to access a game using Steam, and not an actual game you own.

Which is why you don’t have physical copies of those games - you bought a steam key, exactly like you could have done digitally from humblebundle of greenmangaming or myriad of other stores, this one just had it printed on a piece of paper instead of sending you an email.

A Steam key Valve didn’t get a cut from, btw.

I think you don’t know what that word means.

Heck, even if you want to blatantly ignore every other platform and site you can buy games from, which there are plenty, Valve gives devs a supply of Steam keys they can sell anywhere they want, they don’t even get a cut from those despite providing the bandwidth to distribute the files.

Emulation and emulators aren’t illegal. Yuzu for example got in trouble mostly for distributing tools for circumventing copy protection and dumping roms and not for the emulator itself.

But it doesn’t really matter as nobody has money to defend themselves against something like Nintendo. Here just even the threat of it was enough to get the Ryujinx devs to fold just in case.

If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub’s functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users. -https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users

License can’t really revoke that.

#11 is also pretty great.

Bigger problem is the No Derivatives clause of the CC licence, as compiling or forking the code creates a derivative, so it’s now a project nobody is allowed to use (or distribute) in any other form than their exact, precompiled releases.

In fact, as the GitHub terms of service specifically require you to allow forking - as recently demonstrated by the WinAmp project - I wonder if CC ND is even possible to be used in GitHub in the first place.

That’s rough. I mean, rof.

The entire network is nuked in those situations, there are no accessible forks left.

Or the Seat Mii Electric, it’s even slightly more bare bones than the Citigo-e. Basically the VW group decided that instead of one car with three trim levels, they spread them under three different badges.
Though the dashboard is basically identical in each one (even the e-up) and what’s missing are parking sensors, cruise control, steering wheel buttons and stuff like that, so all of them fit the “not a smartphone on wheels” requirement.

And anything you write or upload to Lemmy should be considered permanent, as it immediately spreads throughout all the instances and they actually don’t have to respect edits or removals. And if instances defederate from each other then they simply can’t, as they don’t sync those requests any more - if Lemmy.World decided to defederate from Sopuli, this message would become permanent and I could not do anything about it.

Also, this who saga about the uploaded ID picture.

It’s not “like”, that has been the argument with these piracy cases for ages. If I pirate 100 movies, it obviously means that if I couldn’t have I would have gone to the shop to buy each and every one of them. It’s even worse for anyone caught distributing the downloads, where a site host can be hit with this logic for every user download ever.

Apparently these days they are claiming that movie and TV piracy costs the US film industry $29-71 billion a year and the US GDP a cool $115 billion in total
Because, you know, we have all that money just floating in our pockets now thanks to piracy.