2 ms·
It's an interesting question as to what constitutes the "original" code. Presumably that exists on the developer's machine. It wasn't written on GitHub. But
by MattPalmer1086 5y ago
It's an interesting question as to what constitutes the "original" code. Presumably that exists on the developer's machine. It wasn't written on GitHub.
But I do agree that the expectation is that the repo is controlled by the repo owner, and that expectation has been violated.
- GeekyBear 5y agoSurely "the original code" would be the last code committed by the owner of the repo. As always, if we don't like the direction they have taken, the solution is to fork the project. I think it would be a mistake to set precedent based on how much you like or agree with this particular developer.
- amyjess 5y agoThe developer only owns the code, not the account. GitHub owns 100% of all accounts on their service.
- kristjansson 5y agoThe developer owns a copyright to the specific work - the literal arrangement of characters in a specific order, and non literal aspects like structure or organization. Copyright is created when the work is ‘fixed’ but is not attached to a specific copy of the work. All copies thereof are either made by the owner, produced under license, or a violation of copyright. Everyone can distribute any work they have license to, intact or modified, latest or not, as long as they adhere to the terms of the license. “Ownership”of a repo, latest commits, etc. barely enter into the equation.