If you're not allowed to modify it, it's not open source.
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
137 points (98.6% liked)
Open Source
31218 readers
389 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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
@django until it's garbage-collected. All commits changed IDs, even the ones from yesterday.
I can just create a branch in my local clone
Sad issue...
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 😂
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 edited my reply to include the definition from Wikipedia, but there are of course many other sources.
> take a copy of source code
?
Look, I can't help you if you don't even read the things you are posting. 🤷♂️
How about you continue reading a bit further, until you hit the word "and".
take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development
(emphasis mine).
Github defines "forking" as just copying, while normally it is understood as copying + further development (creating a "fork" in the development history, hence the name).
@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
Why on earth would the license use Github's very niche definition? "Forking" as a software concept has been around for decades longer than Github or it's "fork" button has existed.
Also, how about reading the full psragraph?
You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software.
(emphasis mine). It only does what you think it does if forking = copying. Which it doesn't.
Question to you: Github provides a button labeled "Download ZIP" for downloading a .zip-file containing the source. If I press that button, am I in your opinion creating a fork?
> Why on earth would the license use Github’s very niche definition?
Maybe because it's ON GITHUB??
Thst's not at all how it works. The definitions made in the TOS do not "leak" out of said TOS (unless the TOS specifies that, which it does not).
@sweng It's much more likely that the term follows the github's definition, because it's on github, rather than the wikipedia's definition, because why would it? You keep hanging on one word in a wikipedia article, let me fix that article and maybe we can stop this nonsense discussion.
Can you fix dictionary.com as well?
Computers. to copy the source code from (a piece of software) and develop a new version independently, resulting in two unique pieces of software
@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?
So you also agree that copying is not forking as it is commonly understood?
Do you then claim that the license refers ro "fork" as defined in a specific service's TOS (without referencing said servixe at all)?
Otherwise I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that "forking" in the license does not also necessify modification (which is what the common meaning is).
@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.
Tying "fork" to "repositories" is nonsense, because software forks have existed longer thsn e.g. git.
How do you define "repository", such that it makes sense? Is it only Git repositories? Any version control system? How about a .zip-file placed on an FTP server?
@sweng Look I don't have that much time to split hairs about inconsequential things. All I'm saying is that if someone says "Don't do ABCD" and you click a button on the same page that says "Do ABCD" then that's clearly the same ABCD they were talking about, no more action necessary, no outside definitions necessary. Have a good day.
The point is, it's not at all clear, because Github has it's own definition of what "fork" means. I'm honestly not sure why it's so hard to grasp.
An article exactly about how Github misuses the word "fork": https://drewdevault.com/2019/05/24/What-is-a-fork.html
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.