http://www.opensc.ws/attachments/c-c/5053d1296301011-kaspers...
Besides, what, in your opinion, does you posting this link show? That it is factually possible to trick people into downloading copyright-protected works without the author of that work's consent? Please, you think I or anyone here needed convincing of that?
Your intent, the circumstances and what you do afterwards figure in to the discussion as well.
You want to make it seem as though the simple act of downloading copyrighted software is illegal and I think that it is not that simple.
In practice the situation is complicated, and since there is no enforcement against downloaders of software that is illegal whatsoever anyway the whole point as far as I'm concerned is moot.
@the third, IT IS, it says so right in the Auteurswet that I quoted several sections from a few posts up, explaining exactly why your reasoning was wrong!
And you of course the factual situation is so that it makes the legal reality irrelevant. But it's not because stealing a bike in practice does not have any consequences that it is legal. (I'm not trying to move this into a copyright violation/theft discussion, it's just an example of another infraction of the law). My beef here is that you are making broad sweeping, demonstrably factually wrong claims about the law and then weave a web of straw man and vigorous assertion fallacies to not have to address them.
I think that intent of a law matters, and I think that circumstances matter (a great deal in fact, in this case).
You refer to a text on 'pirated software', that is simply not the same as leaked source code, at least, not in my interpretation of the meaning of those terms.
The intent of this particular law is not to cover leaked software source code distributed by rogue employees but its intent is to cover the wholesale piracy of software for commercial gain, as well as piracy of commercial software by individuals to avoid paying for it. And the only parties that I'm aware of that have ever been prosecuted under that particular law with success are the whole sale distributors.
If someone were to download this software there is no judge in the Netherlands that would either fine them or jail them for that under that particular law. If there is proof to the contrary I'm not aware of it.
What I have said repeatedly, and what I have shown to be true by statute, is that source code is software for purposes of copyright and exemptions thereof. Your interpretation of those things is irrelevant. It's not because you think or feel that those are different, that they actually are. Additionally, the intent is not limited to what you claim, I have no idea why you would think so. It is a generic instrument to prevent unauthorized copying of works. Furthermore, the exceptions for personal use that do exist are explicitly declared not applicable to software and source code. So any 'non-commercial' angle one would take, simply does not hold when it comes to software.
Works are by default copyrighted, it doesn't matter if the user has to download the copyright statement or read it or whatever - copyright is a ius sui generis, it has nothing to do with contract law. Furthermore downloading is distributing, see paragraph 5 of the Auteurswet; and no in this context it does not fall under the exceptions of art 13a.
Then, there is no "good faith" exception. This is completely irrelevant. The "thuiskopie" (home copy for non-Dutch speakers following along) is allowed explicitly through articles 16b and c of the Auteurswet ("Authors Law", Dutch copyright law). However there is an exception for software in art 45n that explicitly says that artt 16b and c are not applicable to works as defined in 10, 1st paragraph under 12. And when we look at that article, it defines software as "computerprogramma’s en het voorbereidend materiaal", meaning "computer programs and their preparation material". One could argue that "computer programs" already comprises source code but we don't have to - they are explictly defined as being treated the same as "software", however one may want to define that in itself (it is probably in the parliamentary history but I don't at the moment have access to Kluwer Online (the Dutch equivalent of Lexis Nexis) to check.
The rest makes equally little sense - no, it doesn't "become grey" if you decide not to delete it, all of that is completely irrelevant. It is the downloading that matters! This is the only thing the Auteurswet sees to, it says nothing of what you do with it afterward! (also, I'm using many exclamation marks in this post! Sorry about that!)
As for the last sentence, again reading the licence is irrelevant. What is relevant is the intent of the author. How that intent is communicated doesn't matter; in most cases it will be done through putting the link to the software somewhere and putting 'hey download my software here' or so next to it.