Way to side-step the substance of the discussion... If you're going to make outrageous claims like "Distributing it is illegal where I live, but downloading it is not." and "This is not 'pirated software', it's leaked source code. That makes distribution copyright infringement and downloading in good faith legal.", either stand by them and defend them in an intellectually honest way, or refine or explain your statements if I/other readers misunderstood them, or abandon your position all together. All you're doing now is arguing a straw man to not have to do any of those.

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?

No, it simply means that the act of downloading source code in and of itself is not illegal.

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.

@your first sentence: IT IS. How can you interpret the Auteurswet any other way? Please tell me how you can come to this conclusion because I really do not understand how you can honestly make this claim.

@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 the main problem here is that you approach the law as literal as possible without looking at the circumstances surrounding the issue.

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.

No, I approach the law as a given situation, as it currently stands in the land. A law degree tends to do that to you.

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.

You're a Dutch lawyer? Cool! What brought you to HN?

No, I just have a Dutch law degree. I'm a programmer by day (I also have what is more or less the Belgian equivalent of a Business Information Systems degree). I did my law degree as a hobby. I haven't decided yet if I want to move into the legal profession.

"504 Gateway Time-out"

Edit: It's a popular link right now, understandably. Sometimes it's working, sometimes it isn't.