Steam 설치
로그인
|
언어
简体中文(중국어 간체)
繁體中文(중국어 번체)
日本語(일본어)
ไทย(태국어)
Български(불가리아어)
Čeština(체코어)
Dansk(덴마크어)
Deutsch(독일어)
English(영어)
Español - España(스페인어 - 스페인)
Español - Latinoamérica(스페인어 - 중남미)
Ελληνικά(그리스어)
Français(프랑스어)
Italiano(이탈리아어)
Bahasa Indonesia(인도네시아어)
Magyar(헝가리어)
Nederlands(네덜란드어)
Norsk(노르웨이어)
Polski(폴란드어)
Português(포르투갈어 - 포르투갈)
Português - Brasil(포르투갈어 - 브라질)
Română(루마니아어)
Русский(러시아어)
Suomi(핀란드어)
Svenska(스웨덴어)
Türkçe(튀르키예어)
Tiếng Việt(베트남어)
Українська(우크라이나어)
번역 관련 문제 보고
- It makes their own employee, who wrote the original bad
- They'd have to employ you
- They'd have to pay you
- They'd have to give credit to you
They'll either not react at all (as usual) or come up with a tale about how their code is better.
Perhaps. (and for the sake of argument I'm just assuming here that there is no obscure reason why the original code might make sense after all).
But programmers get corrected all the time. Code is often knowingly written in a suboptimal way - for example because time constraints didn't allow for better solutions.
The original programmer might have this already on his/her list of stuff to fix.
Known suboptimal code is not always fixed right away - if the cost of testing and possible interaction with other code is considered too high at the time for the payoff.
In any way - not fixing known bugs makes you look much worse than writing the original buggy software.
They don't have to do that.
1. They don't *have* to do that.
2. Why would that bother them?
So?
Non-problem.
Possible. But not necessarily so.
None of your reasons make much sense anyway.
1. They might not notice or ignore this.
2. They might notice and then fix it quietly without using the provided code (it might have already been on a list of things to fix after all).
3. They might accept the offered free code and write a short thank you note.
Option #3 would only get them positive feedback. No downside actually.
There's whole operating systems written by people who fix each others code all the time. Total non-problem for experienced programmers.
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.
Okay now?
DO WHAT THE ♥♥♥♥ YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, December 2004
Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net>
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
as the name is changed.
DO WHAT THE ♥♥♥♥ YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. You just DO WHAT THE ♥♥♥♥ YOU WANT TO.
0 of your claims are true.
Doesn't matter if it is a company or person. They don't have to do any of those things - but still could use the offered code - if they want to.
And even if they want to pay it would be very easy to use a boilerplate contract and pay a handful of freelance contractor hours and mail the paperwork. There's no need to meet anybody in any office. You're making this all up out of thin air.
Again, there's a ton of source being shared and bought every day. And that includes companies using said code.
Companies use Linux often together with some proprietary software package of their own running with it. Somehow they survived that a lot of people provided source for that.
You really think Linus goes through a lot of paperwork about every single patch he accepts into the Kernel? Meets every single contributor?
Or the LibreOffice project.
Or Mozilla?
As long as the author/copyright owner agrees with the usage there is no problem for anybody (or the creator could simply release it to the public domain - i.e. relinquish any copyright claims).
Valve might well ignore/not notice this - or have good technical reasons to go another way. No idea. But if they notice and want to use it – they easily could. There'd be no problem.
https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Source-1-Games/issues/718#issuecomment-18160474