142

WinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6 (github.com)

submitted 1 month ago by makmarian@fedia.io to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] sweng@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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?

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 1 month ago

@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@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago

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).

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 1 month ago

@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@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago

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?

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 1 month ago

@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@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 1 month ago

@sweng

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

Maybe because it's ON GITHUB??

[-] sweng@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago

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).

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 1 month ago

@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.