142
submitted 10 months ago by makmarian@fedia.io to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 47 points 10 months ago

If you're not allowed to modify it, it's not open source.

[-] badcodecat@lemux.minnix.dev 32 points 10 months ago
[-] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 36 points 10 months ago
[-] django@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 10 months ago

Omg, gotta clone the repo, before they remove it. 😂

[-] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 10 points 10 months ago

Currently still in history. Issue was closed an hour ago so u don't have long. Hurry

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 5 points 10 months ago
[-] django@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 10 months ago

Got a copy now as well. As they appear to be still confused about git, others might still have a chance. 😂

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 0 points 10 months ago

@django I see a force-push 22 minutes ago, do you see a "removed it" commit in the history?

[-] django@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 10 months ago
[-] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 10 months ago

@django until it's garbage-collected. All commits changed IDs, even the ones from yesterday.

[-] django@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago

I can just create a branch in my local clone

[-] Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Sad issue...

[-] thejevans@lemmy.ml 23 points 10 months ago

Lol what a clusterfuck. These guys are dolts.

[-] Dagamant@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

I feel like this repo is bait. The license is bad and violates the TOS but if they can convince a judge that it’s legally binding then they already have over a hundred targets who have forked it. They really messed up by including the shoutcast source and some Dolby code, although the Dolby stuff is questionable.

[-] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users. -https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users

License can't really revoke that.

[-] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 4 points 10 months ago

True, but the same judge who would say that this means Github's AI tools can harvest and regurgitate code that you upload as its own would have a good chance of ruling that the Winamp BS license is valid and the forkers have to fork over money.

But there is the fact that the company is based in Brussels and their license apparently breaks Belgian law 😂

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 3 points 10 months ago

@Dagamant

poor guy Jef, first day on github, immediately fired

[-] fireshell@lemmy.ml 13 points 10 months ago

I was particularly pleased that the developers accidentally published a bunch of other code that they had not planned to publish. For example, the code from the ShoutCAST server. https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/issues/11

[-] pmk@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 10 months ago

gnuplot surprisingly also has a strange license, containing "Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to distribute the complete modified source code."

[-] Baleine@jlai.lu 3 points 10 months ago

You left out the end: "Modifications are to

  • be distributed as patches to the released version. Permission to
  • distribute binaries produced by compiling modified sources is granted,
  • provided you"
[-] sweng@programming.dev -2 points 10 months ago

I feel most people are fundamentally misunderstanding what forking means.

Generally, forking means making a copy and modifying it.

Github, however, seems to define "fork" as just making a copy.

So, in fact there is no "TOS violation". The license forbids making a copy and modifying it, while github requires that you allow making copies. There is no conflict between the two.

Even if it were, just having a license that contradicts the github TOS is not a TOS violation (unless that is separately mentioned somewhere).

[-] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 11 points 10 months ago

You have to make a fork aka copy and modify to contribute via pull requests. The license is fundamentally broken.

load more comments (27 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
142 points (99.3% liked)

Open Source

39350 readers
254 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS