563
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
563 points (97.8% liked)
Open Source
35979 readers
626 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
So someone forked the GitHub right?
Since there's now legal precedent, and GitHub already has the signatures of the project code, they will simply now close down any fork that matches the code signatures to avoid getting sued by Nintendo as well.
Hopefully someone forked it to a completely different self-hosted GitHub-like instance or the other GitHub alternatives.
Court cases shouldn't be allowed to be settled out of court after a certain point.
The repository removal was voluntary and done by the Yuzu team. GitHub doesn't have to do anything and won't do anything. Even when they receive a DMCA takedown, they only block forks made through GitHub's "fork" button.
It wasn't voluntary, it was part of the settlement.
Voluntary from the perspective of GitHub. If it was through a DMCA request, all the forks would be gone with it.
Oh there will be forks across the git-verse. There's no way there wouldn't be.
Also does this create precedent? - they settled, its not like it actually went to court.
There isn't a legal precedent. Unless I misunderstood, this is a settlement and settlements aren't! Legal precedent. Which is why big e.g. pharma likes them, because then they don't have the legal precedent for the next case.
It would be possible to create a dummy "salt" commit and rebase every the branch onto it. The content would effectively be the same, but each commit hash would differ.
@0x0 Why do you think they only check the commit hash?
I don't? You can apply a similar technique to bust file hashes. Add a new comment to each source file, or whatever.
My point is that automated methods to detect unwanted content will only get GitHub so far. It will have to be fuzzy, and that means it's an arms race between detectors and obfuscators.
It would be better to "git clone" a repo under threat of removal than fork it in Github. That way an entire copy of its history is preserved. It's possible the forks still exist for now, even if Yuzu removes their official repo, but if Nintendo serves Github the legal paperwork then the forks will get blasted.
That said if someone clones the repo, they probably ought to think twice before putting it back in the cloud without sanitizing / reconstructing the branches & history absent of the bits that got Yuzu into trouble in the first place.
how are the signatures build? do they just use a sha hash for checking file identity?
RIGHT‽
INTERROBANG