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

Open Source

31713 readers
113 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 47 points 3 months ago

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

[–] badcodecat@lemux.minnix.dev 32 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 36 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] django@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 11 points 3 months 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 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] django@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 3 months 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 3 months 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 3 months ago
[–] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] django@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 months ago

I can just create a branch in my local clone

load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Sad issue...

[–] thejevans@lemmy.ml 23 points 3 months ago

Lol what a clusterfuck. These guys are dolts.

[–] Dagamant@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months 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 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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 2 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 3 months ago

@Dagamant

poor guy Jef, first day on github, immediately fired

[–] fireshell@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 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 3 points 3 months 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 2 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"
load more comments
view more: next ›