Recent content by Pragkhan

No, it's not if the one who made it public don't have the rights to do so. I'm not flaming or blaming anyone as I don't really know what happened here. My point here is that no work can be made public without consenting of the owner, even if it the is work based on GPL software, and receiving a...

From the GPL FAQ: It only keeps the same license if I ever release it somehow, like selling it to someone. Providing access to someone I hire is not the same as releasing it, and thus, this work is not automatically licensed under GPL. Other more permissive licenses like MIT explicit permits...

No man, if someone has access to my code to work for me, it doesn't mean that I'm licensing it, not even if the source has any text saying so. Licenses are only valid when publishing or distributing software, or, in the case of AGPL, allowing someone to use your services remotely.

It's definitely illegal even if the source is intended to be redistributed in the future. The fact that the file has a license written in my private repository doesn't mean I'm licensing it to you or licensing it at all. If I'm paying you to work for me all the work produced by you is mine, and...

In that case is up to them if they want to do anything against gesior or people who are making improperly usage of their artwork. Please note that I'm not judging what happened, I'm just trying to clarify people about some misconceptions that are being made about GPL code, such as TFS...

I don't really know if this is the case here, but stolen code is stolen code doesn't matter from where it came, and cannot be used or distributed without permission of the copyright holder.

People needs to understand the differences between open source and licenses, specially GPL and MIT.. All the work based on TFS is automatically under GPL license ONLY IF it's intended to be distributed. If not, the copyright holder can sue whoever stole or is using the work. I highly doubt it...