7 ms·
From the explaining blog post [0] > If you’re not interested in how it works and you just want to do monkey patching, then you can find the library here. Also
by gpas 5y ago
From the explaining blog post [0]
> If you’re not interested in how it works and you just want to do monkey patching, then you can find the library here.
Also
> Wrapping it up in a nice library
> I took the above code and put it in an easy to use library. It supports 32 bit, reversing patches, and patching instance methods. I wrote a couple of examples and put those in the README.
Then in the README[1]:
> Make sure you read the notes at the bottom of the README if you intend to use this library.
Either the author is confused or has decided that he doesn't want to maintain an hack. Anyway license is pretty clear.
There was an HN thread[2] when it was released.
[0] https://bou.ke/blog/monkey-patching-in-go/ https://bou.ke/blog/monkey-patching-in-go/
[1] https://github.com/bouk/monkey https://github.com/bouk/monkey
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9290917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9290917
- bouk 5y agoIt's satirical
- eurasiantiger 5y agoHave you checked how many projects depend on Monkey? It seems the blog post has been translated and reposted many times. Satire does not translate well.
- gpas 5y agoIt crossed my mind... Thanks for chiming in and clear the misunderstanding.
- nextaccountic 5y agoIt seems that you're not interested in suing anyone over this. However, you still don't give people permission to use, not even in small throwaway tests. Which is fair. But your blog post[0] language suggests that you are okay with and even incentivizes people trying this out (even if trying it out might be technically illegal, because it infringes your rights). I think you should have mentioned something about the license in your blog post. As it stands, "If you’re not interested in how it works and you just want to do monkey patching, then you can find the library here." is misleading. If the user wants to do monkey patching, they better not look at your code and program their own solution. [0] https://bou.ke/blog/monkey-patching-in-go/ https://bou.ke/blog/monkey-patching-in-go/
- bouk 5y agoPretty funny right?
- eurasiantiger 5y agoNot in the slightest, but I guess that’s your kick.
- akiselev 5y agoHas anyone ever tested in court whether a license has to be made in good faith to be binding?
- jkaplowitz 5y agoWell, if it isn't binding, then there's no right to reuse it (beyond certain fair use exceptions) under the copyright law that applies by default. For me the question is whether the misleading blog post would be found by a court to be an implicit license separate from the one in the codebase. My guess is that it would depend on several factors including the specific circumstances of the accused infringer and the specifics of contract/copyright law in the relevant jurisdiction, but probably at least sometimes yes.
- nextaccountic 5y agoTIL something can be implicitly licensed. Well the term is implied license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license
- Vinnl 5y agoAn open source licence generally only gives additional rights. If it's not binding, then default copyright would apply, meaning you're still not allowed to use it.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bhaak 5y agoSatire doesn't work very well on the internet in textual context. That's why emoticons were invented.
- bawolff 5y agoWhat is it satirizing? Or is this just a post-hoc "its just a joke bro. Y u mad?" Regardless, its your code, do what you want.
- DangitBobby 5y agoDing ding ding. There is no satire to be found here.
- merrywhether 5y agoYou can also check the revision dates and see that the license was updated a year after the readme, which would imply any encouraging language in the readme is simply out of date.
- llimos 5y agoPresumably revision 697673d58359af7ebdcad66f99b81d011359d8ef and earlier is perfectly fine to use, lacking a LICENSE.txt and with the README encouraging use
- Shank 5y agoIf no license is present, the default is actually “all rights reserved.” This is the same level of restriction. https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/ https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/
- Vinnl 5y agoThat said, > If you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, according to the Terms of Service, other users of GitHub have the right to view and fork your repository. https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archiving-repositories/creating-a-repository-on-github/licensing-a-repository https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archi...
- Macha 5y agoThe actual term (D.5 from https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o... ) > Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. 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). > 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. This allows you to browse and use the fork button to create a repository. It's unclear if the second paragraph is clarifying, or adding to the first term. If it's additive, then you might also have permission to host your own private repo off service. Nowhere does it give you a license to _use_ the contents of the repository in your software. Nor does it allow you to publish the contents outside github - the first paragraph does not address publishing, and the second makes it clear that paragraph only applies "through Github's functionality".
- slim 5y agoThe author is not confused, it's like an actually enforcable version of "use it at your own risk" because it includes legal risk. It's clever and funny
- DangitBobby 5y agoGonna have to disagree that it's funny.
- hnarn 5y agoWhy not? Do you feel entitled to a warranty?
- DangitBobby 5y agoI just don't think "here's a neat thing... tee-hee you can't use it!" Is funny. I don't know if "neener neener" was ever funny to me, even as a child. I understand that it's important to you to bandy about "subtle" accusations by using words like "entitle" so you can feel like you have a point, but there's nothing more there. If I felt entitled I would just ignore the license and use the code anyway.
- hnarn 5y agoI have no idea what you’re talking about.
- DangitBobby 5y agoI have a hard time believing that the word "entitle" was accompanied by no judgement, but if not, then I apologize for making assumptions. I find feelings of entitlement to be largely the result of selfishness or delusion, and so when I hear it applied to me, that's what I think is being said.