- cross-posted to:
- foss@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- foss@beehaw.org
You must log in or register to comment.
If you’re not allowed to modify it, it’s not open source.
awesome issue
Omg, gotta clone the repo, before they remove it. 😂
Currently still in history. Issue was closed an hour ago so u don’t have long. Hurry
done, but be advised, it’s 2.7GB
Got a copy now as well. As they appear to be still confused about git, others might still have a chance. 😂
@django I see a force-push 22 minutes ago, do you see a “removed it” commit in the history?
still part of the repo though: https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/tree/3ab19235a69d96ba0d3d3d32428ea6e7afef6478/Src/Plugins/DSP/sc_serv3
Sad issue…
I CAN’T 😭😭 THIS SHIT GOT MERGED
Deeply confused by what the hell this is
Probably the iconic sound file missing.
@Lemmchen no, just the sentence in the readme
Lol what a clusterfuck. These guys are dolts.
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.
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.
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 😂
poor guy Jef, first day on github, immediately fired
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
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.”
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"
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).
You have to make a fork aka copy and modify to contribute via pull requests. The license is fundamentally broken.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with Github TOS. It does not require you to accept or even allow pull requests.
The TOS actually does not say you are granting users permissions to fork in the usually understood sense. The TOS gives you permission to copy, which Github calls “forking” even though it isn’t.
> you agree to allow others to view and “fork” your repositories
How did you come to the conclusion that this does not grant the permissions to fork? It’s literally in the sentence. Where else did you find the definition of “forking”, if not here? This is what Github defines in the TOS, this is the label on the button in github UI, so clearly this is also what winamp means when they forbid “forking” and that means it’s against the TOS. There is no other “forking”.
I got it from the TOS:
By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and “fork” your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).
They explicitly define it as making copies. There is no mention of being allowed to modify said copy. Also note the quotes around “fork”, since it differs from the usual definition.
E.g. wikpedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development) defines it thusly:
In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct and separate piece of software.
(Emphasis mine)
@sweng But what else would “forking” mean? As you said “in the usual sense”. This is the usual sense - making a copy of the repo on github = forking.
I’m not sure if it’s spelled out in the ToS, but there is no way to prevent pull requests on public repos, it’s a functional requirement.
Just because you can do something, does not mean you are allowed to.
