The license is what gives you permission to copy and fork the software in the first place. If you don't accept the license or don't abide by its terms, but copy the software anyway and redistribute it, you are infringing their copyright(s).

You can't replace the license with another one unless you wrote all of the software. Some projects are distributed under multiple licenses though ("dual licensing") with permission of the copyright holder(s). For more info go to opensource.stackexchange.com

regardless of whether the license is contradictory to itself? Have you read it? It does not take a lot of understanding to understand that it represses itself and also there is a conflict with the information liberties referred to and called free software, in which case could I sue blender.org for fraud?

open source is not free software, the difference is that you can use it and read the code, and modify it, but not distribute it without the permission of the owner of opensource

an example, open source is windows 10, and you have to pay a license, in addition they sell you vinary files, they do not sell you the source code, so if you are not a master programmer that is opensource and that you read the code does not help you a lot as an end user. how can you be opensource and sell the software when or what you should sell is your job not the application, english is not my native language, I can not explain clearly for lack of practice in the language

Which part of the Blender license is contradictory? Why do you think they have committed fraud? Even if a part of the license is contradictory that would still not permit you to relicense the whole project in a different way or otherwise ignore the license. Windows 10 is not open source in any sense. Is your question about open source or is it about legal ramifications of copying all of the source code in Blender, redistributing it (a fork) but just disregarding what the license says because your opinion is that the license "represses itself"?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on opensource.stackexchange.com

it's about what legal problem I can face if I eliminate it and I put a license truly free of use, and if the license represses itself, here they do not contemplate the paradox that the simple fact of licensing something already makes it something that does not It is free as opposed to simply including your name as an author and asking to be recognized for your work, which is different from asking for credit in your name, it has nothing to do with opensource

because I'm not talking about doing opensource, I'm talking about licenses, and for this I have to expose the panorama from the point of view of a programmer who shares his work, not a programmer who is looking for help to create source code

I know the licenses, what I do not know is the problem of removing them contradictory is that there are blender files that can not be modified without permission from the one who created them at the time, and since those people do not even have contact with the development and nobody knows where to contact them, then there are broken pieces that they do not want to repair or change because these idiots are lost in space

windows if it is open source approximately in 2004 they released their code, but everything you do is licensed and under the domain of windows and microsoft, even if you make some improvement they do not pay you and they charge you every time they sell a copy

"it's about what legal problem I can face if I eliminate it and I put a license truly free of use"; that's asking for specific legal advice, which is off-topic here.

I don't think it's specific legal advice. It seems to boil down to "What can happen if I disregard the Free/Open Source license on a software project and violate its terms?" The fact that we're talking about Blender and the license is GPLv2+ with additional details doesn't matter for the question, but are a way of framing the question.

Yes, I exposed it in that way because I'm doing it, I want to foresee what I'm facing, I have experience with copyright as a creator of written content, but I never worried about fighting a software license because where I worked I sign a contract and I get paid for performing specific tasks and I do not care if the code bears my name, because they paid me a lot of money for my time and implement solutions,

but this is different, this is my job to share completely without cost of manofactira or of regalia, and I do not want to allow blender org to take over something that I did not want to fix at the time, besides that I am fighting against an autocracy within blender org which is quite uncomfortable

It fits the fact that I understand perfectly well that the law is interpretive, it is not absolute, and hence this doubt, can a reasonable doubt be created about this? sufficiently well supported and argued to face the problems that entails

quite interesting, I think you get what I want, yes indeed something is what I see coming, on the other hand I do not pay my fees as an associate of the FSF so I am no longer an agent, I have not had contact with Richard for a long time, and this is not a debatable issue with him, the controversy would be eternal, and if in reality I will fight with a horde of hippys blender, who curiously live in a rather fragile autocracy

For example, a problem that blender faces and does not want to solve is the same one that they will surely stick to at some point if I face them legally. they can not change the GPL2 license of the files programmed by people who participated in their project, even though they are the owners of the src, we are talking about that not even the owner, founder, and current creators of blender can not change licenses because they can not find they wrote fragments of code and in their fragment they put the GPL2

@Brandin contradictions: you have a license that tells you that you are free to use the code, modify it, improve it and share it, with or without cost according to your criteria, but it does not allow you to change the license?, so that you can put a lock on a door that is supposed to be open? one more contradiction is that it is supposed to give you computer freedom and that computer freedom is limited to being able to consult who put the license in the file,

@Brandin : but if it dies the license persists, then any modification you can make to improve it will not be able to be shared because the subject that put the license died and I do not grant permission, how do you solve this?

On the other hand, the comic side of the situation comes to my mind: I see myself saying to a hippy's horde ... Hey, dude, if I kick the balls, you'll bother with me?

another point that I had not clarified, is that I do not try to accredit blender as if yp was the author, what I try is to avoid getting my job screwed up by improving it, and for this you have to kill the license you have on it because it does not allow you to cresca This is like telling someone, you have your best job and you put your foot on the head so that it does not advance, so I find it contradictory to have this license

Just for curiosity... why do you seem to believe that "GPL and GPLv2 to modify something with these licenses you need the permission from who made the code"? This is the exact opposite. Of course, what you cannot modify is the licence itself, but you can modify the code as long as you respect the licence. The licence is precisely the permission to do that.

@Nazgûl It sounds like you just really don't like the license to the software, so in this case your best option is to refuse to use the software. Unfortunately, you cannot simply discard a license that you don't agree with and still use and redistribute the software anyway. But you don't have to accept the license; simply remove the software and reject the license. Tell the author if you wish that you won't use the software because you don't agree with the license, or suggest an alternative.

nobody likes that license, it is not an option, there are no alternatives to suggest, read once more everything with stop and analyze image 2 of the question

Based on your picture you seem to ask what to do if someone contributes some code, then dies, but you wanted to ask that person to change the license of that code. But of course John Doe, who has died, cannot give permission to change the license (say, to re-release under a different license). Is that what you want to know?

no, do you speak arabic or spanish ?

do you have a car! a 1966 mustang, the designer has already died, suppose you have a license like the software, your tires are already obsolete? what are you going to do in this case? remember shellby who created that model has already died, he put gpl2 license, stop using your car or you change the tires?

@Nazgûl If the author released some software under a certain license and then dies, the copyright lasts either 70 additional years after death or a different term if it is considered to be a pseudoanonymous work. Copyright protection: life + 70 years. But whose life?. If you don't agree to the license then you can either stop using that code or you can make sure you are healthy enough to live for another 70 years so that you can use it in the future when its copyright expires.