6 ms·

I'm curious how they expect people to contribute to the project. Section 4 of the license says "Contribution to Project: You are encouraged to contribute improv

by ndiddy 2y ago

I'm curious how they expect people to contribute to the project. Section 4 of the license says "Contribution to Project: You are encouraged to contribute improvements, enhancements, and bug fixes back to the project. Contributions must be submitted to the official repository and will be reviewed and incorporated at the discretion of the maintainers." However, the restrictions in Section 5 ban forking the code or distributing modified versions. This means that the standard Github "fork the repo, make your changes in a branch, and send a pull request" workflow for submitting changes would violate the license.

owaislone 2y ago
I guess they mean "fork" in the broader Open Source sense when you fork something to create your own version of it and take it on a different path or do things differently like like NeoVim forked Vim. GitHub uses the term "fork" merely to create a copy of the repo for contributions.
- lifthrasiir 2y ago
  The problem here is, of course, that the definition of "forking" is missing from the license. It is evident that two reasonable definitions for "forking" exist in this context (however you feel about Github's takeover of the term) and will continue to confuse potential contributors until fixed.
londons_explore 2y ago
They expect people to simply ignore the license. And most people will. And they won't set their lawyers on any contributors. And the world will go on.
- heyoni 2y ago
  That’s not good enough. You can’t put out an open source project and expect to control the community around it to that degree.
  - justinclift 2y ago
    Well, it's not an Open Source project. So there's that. ;)
    - curtis3389 2y ago
      Actually this is open source. This is what the term refers to. What you mean is that it's not free (libre) software, which is most certainly is not. They do not respect you and your rights: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
      - bdowling 2y ago
        When people who care about open source talk about "open source", they often mean the Open Source Initiative definition. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
        curtis3389 2y ago
        sigh OSI was established specifically because they just wanted to share code and didn't care about GNU's 4 freedoms, so don't be surprised when the proponents of open source give you projects you can't even fork.
        bdowling 2y ago
        I'm not surprised. In this case, however, it doesn't even meet the OSI definition because it doesn't allow distribution of modified versions.
        chungy 2y ago
        OSI was established specifically because companies got queasy over free software's quasi-religious rationale behind the "four freedoms" and wanted something that sounded a lot more pragmatic while effectively being the same thing. Don't get facts twisted, it was never "if you happen to peek at the code, it's open"; it's the full freedom backing behind it. That's exactly what the OSD is about, which was linked int the parent, if you bothered to read it.
xupybd 2y ago
1. Forking: The license explicitly prohibits forking. Section 5 states: "No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software." 2. Making changes: You are allowed to make modifications, but only for private use. Section 3 states: "You are granted the right to Modify the software for private use only." 3. Submitting pull requests: While the license doesn't use the term "pull request" specifically, it does encourage contributions. Section 4 states: "Contribution to Project: You are encouraged to contribute improvements, enhancements, and bug fixes back to the project. Contributions must be submitted to the official repository and will be reviewed and incorporated at the discretion of the maintainers." However, there's a potential conflict here. The license prohibits distributing modified versions (Section 5: "No Distribution of Modified Versions"), which could be interpreted to include submitting a pull request, as that involves sharing your modifications. In summary, this license: - Does not allow forking - Allows modifications for private use only - Encourages contributions to the official repository - Prohibits distribution of modified versions Given these terms, you cannot fork the code in the traditional sense. You can make changes locally for private use, and you are encouraged to submit contributions to the official repository. However, the process for doing so is not clearly defined, given the restrictions on distributing modified versions. If you want to contribute, you would likely need to submit your changes directly to the official repository without creating a public fork. The exact mechanism for this would need to be clarified by the project maintainers.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > If you want to contribute, you would likely need to submit your changes directly to the official repository without creating a public fork. The exact mechanism for this would need to be clarified by the project maintainers. They probably don't mean it, but the standard, intended mechanism for submitting changes with git is patches sent via e-mail.
SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
Anybody know whether this would preclude patches that contain none of the project's own source code?
userbinator 2y ago
Does anyone else notice the irony of enforcing a license on software whose widest use was probably to play pirated music?
- _7acn 2y ago
  Personally, I use Winamp to play FLAC files from CDs I own and to listen to streams from DI.fm
- Karellen 2y ago
  Winamp existed before piracy was well-organised, or even bandwidth-feasible for many people. A lot of people will have used it to play rips they'd made of their own CDs.
0x0 2y ago
I guess you could format a diff patch file locally and paste it as a text comment in an issue in their repo...? :P
chrisfinazzo 2y ago
As @rollcat said, I suspect this means that people can contribute modifications, but that they cannot be distributed outside of the official sources. So, while you can send a patch to add a feature, you couldn't release that modified version on its own.
- thomastjeffery 2y ago
  That still contradicts the license as written. > No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software. There is no meaningful difference between the words "patch" and "fork"; and the act of creating an edited codebase is explicitly disallowed. If that isn't what they want, then they had better write more clearly.
  - chrisfinazzo 2y ago
    English is a stupid language ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - otteromkram 2y ago
      Not really. Legalese is vague on purpose because not every situation can be rigidly defined. As for English, because of its plain nature, I have little trouble understanding someone who isn't proficient or who has a heavy accent, whereas languages with specific infections or tones might not have that kind of liberty.
    - thomastjeffery 2y ago
      You can't blame this one on English. Before the ambiguity of language can get in the way, there has to be a coherent idea that you want to express in the first place. This license explicitly contradicts itself. It says you are encouraged to contribute changes to the source, and you may not share changes to the source with anyone ever.
      - hunter2_ 2y ago
        It seems like the intent is to encourage giving changes to exclusively the maintainer, and that forking in this context refers to distribution beyond a private communication between the change proposer and the maintainer.
Spivak 2y ago
Because there are two definitions of fork. One is the button that says fork in Github which is really cloning the repo into your account. Then there is fork meaning "fork the project" which is actively developing and distributing an alternative lineage of the project, likely under a different name. You can use Github's PR workflow, it's fine. Github is the one with the unfortunate naming here that goes against the already established meaning of fork. It really should be clone.
Novosell 2y ago
The Github ToS gives users the right to fork any public repos.
- kadoban 2y ago
  It's not clear that Github's ToS can do such a thing, is it? What gives them the right to overrule the license from Winamp to me?
  - codetrotter 2y ago
    Because Winamp agreed to the ToS of GitHub by uploading their code to GitHub.
    - j16sdiz 2y ago
      The legal system don't work that way. That ToS is between wimamp and GitHub, not you. You have to do the due diligence to get the permission from winamp. You might be able to get away by suing GitHub and have them sue winamp. ..
      - ronsor 2y ago
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/third-party_beneficiary https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/third-party_beneficiary
        kadoban 2y ago
        Is the ToS a contract? Even if it is would the remedy to Winamp breaking it be modifying the license Winamp provides?
        ronsor 2y ago
        Yes, every ToS is a contract. As for the most appropriate remedy, that's for a court to decide.
      - deleted 2y ago
tsukikage 2y ago
Open an issue and type your patch into the description. Note that you can't test or debug your patch, because that would mean creating a modified version of the codebase, which is prohibited. Just type that stuff straight in, directly from your fever dreams, unmediated by common practice. If it's good enough for the license, it's good enough for the code.
- cormorant 2y ago
  No, it says: "You are granted the right to Modify the software for private use only. You may make, run, and propagate Covered works that you do not Convey, without conditions, so long as your License otherwise remains in force." It's clear they don't want you distributing modified versions. The thing people are getting caught up on is "You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software." They fail to define "forked" but they don't seem to have meant an undistributed modification.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - IntelMiner 2y ago
    I believe the parent commenter was being deeply sarcastic with their suggestion
vel0city 2y ago
You don't need to fork a repo to create a branch.
- hunter2_ 2y ago
  If the permissions on the repo (in GitHub, not git) are such that you lack permission to create branches, then you must first clone (local git terminology) / fork (hosted on GitHub terminology) the repo so that all the permissions are yours.

by ndiddy 2y ago

owaislone 2y ago

I guess they mean "fork" in the broader Open Source sense when you fork something to create your own version of it and take it on a different path or do things differently like like NeoVim forked Vim. GitHub uses the term "fork" merely to create a copy of the repo for contributions.

lifthrasiir 2y ago
The problem here is, of course, that the definition of "forking" is missing from the license. It is evident that two reasonable definitions for "forking" exist in this context (however you feel about Github's takeover of the term) and will continue to confuse potential contributors until fixed.

londons_explore 2y ago

They expect people to simply ignore the license. And most people will. And they won't set their lawyers on any contributors. And the world will go on.

heyoni 2y ago
That’s not good enough. You can’t put out an open source project and expect to control the community around it to that degree.
- justinclift 2y ago
  Well, it's not an Open Source project. So there's that. ;)
  - curtis3389 2y ago
    Actually this is open source. This is what the term refers to. What you mean is that it's not free (libre) software, which is most certainly is not. They do not respect you and your rights: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
    - bdowling 2y ago
      When people who care about open source talk about "open source", they often mean the Open Source Initiative definition. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
      - curtis3389 2y ago
        sigh OSI was established specifically because they just wanted to share code and didn't care about GNU's 4 freedoms, so don't be surprised when the proponents of open source give you projects you can't even fork.
        bdowling 2y ago
        I'm not surprised. In this case, however, it doesn't even meet the OSI definition because it doesn't allow distribution of modified versions.
        chungy 2y ago
        OSI was established specifically because companies got queasy over free software's quasi-religious rationale behind the "four freedoms" and wanted something that sounded a lot more pragmatic while effectively being the same thing. Don't get facts twisted, it was never "if you happen to peek at the code, it's open"; it's the full freedom backing behind it. That's exactly what the OSD is about, which was linked int the parent, if you bothered to read it.

xupybd 2y ago

1. Forking: The license explicitly prohibits forking. Section 5 states: "No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software." 2. Making changes: You are allowed to make modifications, but only for private use. Section 3 states: "You are granted the right to Modify the software for private use only." 3. Submitting pull requests: While the license doesn't use the term "pull request" specifically, it does encourage contributions. Section 4 states: "Contribution to Project: You are encouraged to contribute improvements, enhancements, and bug fixes back to the project. Contributions must be submitted to the official repository and will be reviewed and incorporated at the discretion of the maintainers." However, there's a potential conflict here. The license prohibits distributing modified versions (Section 5: "No Distribution of Modified Versions"), which could be interpreted to include submitting a pull request, as that involves sharing your modifications. In summary, this license: - Does not allow forking - Allows modifications for private use only - Encourages contributions to the official repository - Prohibits distribution of modified versions Given these terms, you cannot fork the code in the traditional sense. You can make changes locally for private use, and you are encouraged to submit contributions to the official repository. However, the process for doing so is not clearly defined, given the restrictions on distributing modified versions. If you want to contribute, you would likely need to submit your changes directly to the official repository without creating a public fork. The exact mechanism for this would need to be clarified by the project maintainers.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
> If you want to contribute, you would likely need to submit your changes directly to the official repository without creating a public fork. The exact mechanism for this would need to be clarified by the project maintainers. They probably don't mean it, but the standard, intended mechanism for submitting changes with git is patches sent via e-mail.

SuperNinKenDo 2y ago

Anybody know whether this would preclude patches that contain none of the project's own source code?

userbinator 2y ago

Does anyone else notice the irony of enforcing a license on software whose widest use was probably to play pirated music?

_7acn 2y ago
Personally, I use Winamp to play FLAC files from CDs I own and to listen to streams from DI.fm
Karellen 2y ago
Winamp existed before piracy was well-organised, or even bandwidth-feasible for many people. A lot of people will have used it to play rips they'd made of their own CDs.

0x0 2y ago

I guess you could format a diff patch file locally and paste it as a text comment in an issue in their repo...? :P

chrisfinazzo 2y ago

As @rollcat said, I suspect this means that people can contribute modifications, but that they cannot be distributed outside of the official sources. So, while you can send a patch to add a feature, you couldn't release that modified version on its own.

thomastjeffery 2y ago
That still contradicts the license as written. > No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software. There is no meaningful difference between the words "patch" and "fork"; and the act of creating an edited codebase is explicitly disallowed. If that isn't what they want, then they had better write more clearly.
- chrisfinazzo 2y ago
  English is a stupid language ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - otteromkram 2y ago
    Not really. Legalese is vague on purpose because not every situation can be rigidly defined. As for English, because of its plain nature, I have little trouble understanding someone who isn't proficient or who has a heavy accent, whereas languages with specific infections or tones might not have that kind of liberty.
  - thomastjeffery 2y ago
    You can't blame this one on English. Before the ambiguity of language can get in the way, there has to be a coherent idea that you want to express in the first place. This license explicitly contradicts itself. It says you are encouraged to contribute changes to the source, and you may not share changes to the source with anyone ever.
    - hunter2_ 2y ago
      It seems like the intent is to encourage giving changes to exclusively the maintainer, and that forking in this context refers to distribution beyond a private communication between the change proposer and the maintainer.

Spivak 2y ago

Because there are two definitions of fork. One is the button that says fork in Github which is really cloning the repo into your account. Then there is fork meaning "fork the project" which is actively developing and distributing an alternative lineage of the project, likely under a different name. You can use Github's PR workflow, it's fine. Github is the one with the unfortunate naming here that goes against the already established meaning of fork. It really should be clone.

Novosell 2y ago

The Github ToS gives users the right to fork any public repos.

kadoban 2y ago
It's not clear that Github's ToS can do such a thing, is it? What gives them the right to overrule the license from Winamp to me?
- codetrotter 2y ago
  Because Winamp agreed to the ToS of GitHub by uploading their code to GitHub.
  - j16sdiz 2y ago
    The legal system don't work that way. That ToS is between wimamp and GitHub, not you. You have to do the due diligence to get the permission from winamp. You might be able to get away by suing GitHub and have them sue winamp. ..
    - ronsor 2y ago
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/third-party_beneficiary https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/third-party_beneficiary
      - kadoban 2y ago
        Is the ToS a contract? Even if it is would the remedy to Winamp breaking it be modifying the license Winamp provides?
        ronsor 2y ago
        Yes, every ToS is a contract. As for the most appropriate remedy, that's for a court to decide.
    - deleted 2y ago

tsukikage 2y ago

Open an issue and type your patch into the description. Note that you can't test or debug your patch, because that would mean creating a modified version of the codebase, which is prohibited. Just type that stuff straight in, directly from your fever dreams, unmediated by common practice. If it's good enough for the license, it's good enough for the code.

cormorant 2y ago
No, it says: "You are granted the right to Modify the software for private use only. You may make, run, and propagate Covered works that you do not Convey, without conditions, so long as your License otherwise remains in force." It's clear they don't want you distributing modified versions. The thing people are getting caught up on is "You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software." They fail to define "forked" but they don't seem to have meant an undistributed modification.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- IntelMiner 2y ago
  I believe the parent commenter was being deeply sarcastic with their suggestion

vel0city 2y ago

You don't need to fork a repo to create a branch.

hunter2_ 2y ago
If the permissions on the repo (in GitHub, not git) are such that you lack permission to create branches, then you must first clone (local git terminology) / fork (hosted on GitHub terminology) the repo so that all the permissions are yours.