chebra

@MigratingtoLemmy Yup, there are even some similarities from the Twitter/Nitter fight - tracking tokens, IP blocks, API limits, ... Get ready for youtube requiring login to watch videos.

@MigratingtoLemmy Yesterday I saw a broken embedded video on LinkedIn so.....

@MigratingtoLemmy you are wrong though. They are adding tokens and signatures, without them the videos aren't playing. But I just updated my invidious and it's playing fine again => it's not an IP block (yet), it is a change in the youtube media api, so the players need to be changed too = effectively a player block.

@w00t @sag

This fixed the problem for invidious, maybe RustyTube needs something similar https://github.com/iv-org/inv_sig_helper

@TwinTusks @w00t

Looks like yesterday Youtube simply stopped serving the format 22 (ytdl -f22, IIRC that was 480p video+audio) on all videos, so now anything that had this format selected as default is failing (@invidious). -f18 is still there (360p).

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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?

@sweng

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

Maybe because it's ON GITHUB??

@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