139
submitted 2 years ago by makmarian@fedia.io to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 46 points 2 years ago

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

[-] badcodecat@lemux.minnix.dev 31 points 2 years ago
[-] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 34 points 2 years ago
[-] django@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 2 years ago

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

[-] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 10 points 2 years ago

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

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 5 points 2 years ago
[-] django@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years ago
[-] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 2 years ago

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

[-] django@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago

I can just create a branch in my local clone

[-] Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Sad issue...

[-] Dagamant@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years 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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years ago

@Dagamant

poor guy Jef, first day on github, immediately fired

[-] fireshell@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years 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 3 points 2 years 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 2 years 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"
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
139 points (99.3% liked)

Open Source

48983 readers
125 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 7 years ago
MODERATORS