Skip Navigation

chebra

@ chebra @mstdn.io

Posts
1
Comments
251
Joined
8 yr. ago

  • WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6

    Jump

  • @sweng I simply don't agree that your "common" definition is really the "common" one. Fork is a fork if you created a copy in another repo. Immediately in that moment, even without a new commit. Clearly that's what the "Fork" button does. Not zip, that's not a fork. Nor a private copy, unavailable to anyone else. This fits both the definition from the license, and the TOS, and all instances of "forking" that I've seen before.

  • WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6

    Jump

  • @sweng And to your question: I'd say no, downloading as zip is not a fork, either by github TOS (because they say the copy must be in a repo) nor by the license, because they specifically define the term "Modify", and saying that an exact copy is ok, as long as you don't distribute it or "fork" it - which is exactly why "fork" here means the "Fork" button of github.

    Do you think that Download ZIP = fork? It sounds to me like it doesn't fit the wikipedia definition either, so what's your point?

  • WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6

    Jump

  • @sweng

    Why on earth would the license use Github’s very niche definition?

    Maybe because it's ON GITHUB??

  • GitHub - WinampDesktop/winamp: Iconic media player

    Jump

  • @tux0r You are right that this mistaken definition is quite common. Smart person would try to correct the mistake, not defend it.

  • WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6

    Jump

  • @sweng No need, I can instead continue reading the "license" and see the word "or".

    You may not create, maintain, or distribute

    They disallow creating copies. Plus other things, but already creating the fork by either definition is disallowed. Not to mention, wikipedia is not a legal document while the TOS is, the double-quotes are used because that's the first time a new term is used, followed by its definition, and that the license is likely using Github's definition, not wikipedia's

  • WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6

    Jump

  • @sweng

    Look, I can't help you if you don't even read the things you are posting. 🤷‍♂️

  • WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6

    Jump

  • @sweng

    take a copy of source code

  • WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6

    Jump

  • @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.

  • WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6

    Jump

  • @sweng

    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".

  • WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6

    Jump

  • @Dagamant

    poor guy Jef, first day on github, immediately fired

  • WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6

    Jump

  • @BrikoX @sweng

    It's in the linked issue, spelled out alright:

    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).

  • WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6

    Jump

  • @sweng @BrikoX No, the TOS "just" says that by making the repo public you are granting all github users the right to fork it. So that right has already been granted.

  • WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6

    Jump

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

  • WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6

    Jump

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

  • WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6

    Jump
  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • @Carighan But if one hammer uploads your browsing history to a server for commercial exploitation, then the choice matters. They will reach for a different hammer if they know.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • @LordCrom @101

    95% of people don’t know fdroid exists

    Exactly, so let's keep talking about F-Droid and recommend it to the 95% of people, shall we?

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • @Melatonin No problem 🙂 Organic Maps is a great client for OSM. And doesn't it feel good knowing that by correcting something through Organic Maps you are taking part in a community of 10M users who together created a 2TB xml file map of the whole planet, free for anyone to download? It's one of the miracles of the free libre world.