this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
138 points (99.3% liked)

Open Source

30581 readers
265 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 week ago

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

[–] badcodecat@lemux.minnix.dev 30 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] django@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] django@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 1 week ago (1 children)

@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 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] django@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago

I can just create a branch in my local clone

[–] Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Sad issue...

[–] thejevans@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 week ago

Lol what a clusterfuck. These guys are dolts.

[–] JameUwU@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I CAN'T 😭😭 THIS SHIT GOT MERGED

[–] IrritableOcelot@beehaw.org 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Deeply confused by what the hell this is

[–] Lemmchen@feddit.org 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Probably the iconic sound file missing.

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 1 week ago

@Lemmchen no, just the sentence in the readme

[–] Dagamant@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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 1 week 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 1 week ago

@Dagamant

poor guy Jef, first day on github, immediately fired

[–] fireshell@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week 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 1 week ago (1 children)

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 1 week 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 1 week ago (1 children)

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 1 week ago (27 children)

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 ›