@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 😂
poor guy Jef, first day on github, immediately fired
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.
@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.
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.
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.
> 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).
Just because you can do something, does not mean you are allowed to.
makmarian@fedia.io to 
If you're not allowed to modify it, it's not open source.
awesome issue
#11 is also pretty great.
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
@theshatterstone54 @django
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.
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 😂
@Dagamant
poor guy Jef, first day on github, immediately fired
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
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.
@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.
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.
@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".
I got it from the TOS:
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:
(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.
@sweng
> take a copy of source code
?
@sweng
Look, I can't help you if you don't even read the things you are posting. 🤷♂️
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.
@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).
Just because you can do something, does not mean you are allowed to.