4 ms·
In the alternative case, a company who terminates an engineer can't prevent them from accessing the code if they've forked it. This is a"problem" with git, whic
by hashkb 9y ago
In the alternative case, a company who terminates an engineer can't prevent them from accessing the code if they've forked it. This is a"problem" with git, which GitHub has tried to solve for its paying customers. Whether or not you agree... GitHub has worked like this for years.
- Someone1234 9y agoIf GitHub wants to implement DRM-like copy control, they should implement actual DRM-like copy control, and leave fork the heck alone. Part of the problem is that instead of being explicit about how things work they're being implicit. Instead of users being told a fork is not a, you know, fork they're lied to only to have the fork vanish later. Why is there no banner at the top of the repo warning you this is a fake repo? Why is there no ability for the original owner to delegate a full fork to the children? If this implemented this correctly you'd expect to have control over how it works (or turn it off).