Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6 · WinampDesktop/winamp
github.com
No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form. * No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked ...
  • Dagamant@lemmy.world
    18·
    2 months ago

    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
      16·
      2 months ago

      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.

  • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
    41·
    2 months ago

    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.”

  • sweng@programming.dev
    69·
    2 months ago

    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).

    • BrikoX@lemmy.zipEnglish
      111·
      2 months ago

      You have to make a fork aka copy and modify to contribute via pull requests. The license is fundamentally broken.

      • sweng@programming.dev
        26·
        2 months ago

        Yes, but that has nothing to do with Github TOS. It does not require you to accept or even allow pull requests.

        • chebra@mstdn.io
          72·
          2 months ago

          @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.

          • sweng@programming.dev
            42·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • chebra@mstdn.io
              81·
              2 months ago

              @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”.

              • sweng@programming.dev
                31·
                2 months ago

                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)

                • chebra@mstdn.io
                  22·
                  2 months ago

                  @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.

        • BrikoX@lemmy.zipEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • chebra@mstdn.io
            32·
            2 months ago

            @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).