6 ms·

This seems to go against GitHub's own ToS[1]: > By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositor

by xx_ns 2y ago

This seems to go against GitHub's own ToS[1]: > 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). [1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

rogerdpack 2y ago
You can fork it but not commit to it? LOL
elashri 2y ago
It is interesting that in a hypothetical scenario if someone did fork it and then thes goes to court. Which licence would take precedence here?
- otteromkram 2y ago
  > Which licence would take precedence here? Whichever one runs up the attorney's bill the highest.
- favorited 2y ago
  > Which licence would take precedence here? There is only 1 license, and it is issued by the WinAmp copyright holders. No additional license is created by hosting a repository on GitHub. The only (extremely theoretical) issue would be between GitHub and the WinAmp folks, if GH believed that WinAmp is violating its TOS.
- shiandow 2y ago
  Seems to me that it's up to you which license you use, so if one grants the right to fork then there's nothing Winamp could do to prevent that. At best they could invalidate the one license they control, but even that seems iffy
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
squarefoot 2y ago
Interesting to see how would this play out in case of a lawsuit against an user who doesn't honor their license because it clashes with GH one. Anyway, that code has already been swallowed by some AI that will reorganize it, split in functional blocks and regurgitate it elsewhere someday, so too late for them to complain.
- kube-system 2y ago
  The GitHub ToS is not a software license. It is the terms for using the GitHub service. The penalty for breaking it is that your GitHub services might be terminated, not that they can somehow relicense your software.
  - trehalose 2y ago
    This part of the ToS explicitly does grant such a license to other GitHub users. > 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).
    - efilife 2y ago
      It would seem that Github's TOS is superior to their license. They could have chosen other way to host their code
    - IgorPartola 2y ago
      As written, this says that you can fork a repo but can’t then clone it and work on it on your own machine. Isn’t software licensing fun?
      - skeaker 2y ago
        Interesting. I guess you could just stick to the Github web editor to stay compliant? Really a terrible way to go about things though
thomastjeffery 2y ago
IANAL... By creating an account on GitHub, you agree to this license. That seems like a pretty strong precedent for precedence.
avodonosov 2y ago
Different meaning of "forking". "modified/derived version" vs "copy"
Etheryte 2y ago
There is no conflict here. The quote from Github's ToS means you allow others to copy the source code you've made public, it cannot and does not give you any rights regarding what you do with the code beyond that. Points one and two of the Winamp license quote are essentially one and the same, just worded in a different way for clarity.
- SixtyHurtz 2y ago
  The GitHub ToS states: > 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. It would be weird to have a license that lets me create a fork in my own repo, but doesn't permit me to distribute it. If I create a fork of a public repo on GH, I require a license to distribute it because a public repo can be forked or downloaded by anyone. I can't them doing doing it. Therefore permission to further distribute is required for participation on GH.
  - unilynx 2y ago
    > If I create a fork of a public repo on GH, I require a license to distribute it because a public repo can be forked or downloaded by anyone Why? The users that clone or fork your fork of the original repository are covered by the original repository's "license" GitHub grants itself, not yours.
    - SixtyHurtz 2y ago
      Because if I didn't have a license then that would mean I would be liable for infringement every time someone downloaded it from GH. That's exactly why GH has the TOS that it has - so that nobody can be sued for just using GH when a rights holder uploads their own work to a public GH repo.
your_drunk_dad 2y ago
Time to report it to GH then.
slightwinder 2y ago
I guess they mean with "fork" a rebranded or self-compiled version. So unmodified source code, but different logo or name. Or compiled with different settings or for an unsupported platform. Something along that line. But calling this fork, after they are already forbidding modifications in point 1 is really strange phrasing.
mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
There are two distinct meanings of fork and you are conflating them I think. I suspect winamp's license is using the sense of the (pre GitHub) idea of creating a distinct version of a project maintained by a different group, and the GitHub ToS specifically refers to forking within the GitHub platform.
- thomastjeffery 2y ago
  What is the other meaning of fork? When you click "fork this repo" in GitHub, that clones the repository, and re-publishes it under your username. When you clone a repo to your system privately, that does not involve publishing. If this is their intended meaning of "fork", then this license must explicitly disallow cloning the repo!
  - fooqux 2y ago
    > What is the other meaning of fork? The older, still in use today meaning is what happened when Oracle bought MySQL and ruined it. People forked it and now we have MariaDB. Basically, it means a fork in the code base and now there are two separate projects.
    - simoncion 2y ago
      Yes. Until Github came along, "Creating a copy of software for your own personal use" had never been widely-accepted definition of the word "fork" in the context of software development. Forking a project has always involved independent publication and maintenance of said project.
      - bee_rider 2y ago
        The typical way of copying a project for your own personal use on GitHub involves publishing that copy on GitHub. So, it is a real fork—maybe not a well maintained one, or one that the author is particularly excited about, though!
    - thomastjeffery 2y ago

by xx_ns 2y ago

rogerdpack 2y ago

You can fork it but not commit to it? LOL

elashri 2y ago

It is interesting that in a hypothetical scenario if someone did fork it and then thes goes to court. Which licence would take precedence here?

otteromkram 2y ago
> Which licence would take precedence here? Whichever one runs up the attorney's bill the highest.
favorited 2y ago
> Which licence would take precedence here? There is only 1 license, and it is issued by the WinAmp copyright holders. No additional license is created by hosting a repository on GitHub. The only (extremely theoretical) issue would be between GitHub and the WinAmp folks, if GH believed that WinAmp is violating its TOS.
shiandow 2y ago
Seems to me that it's up to you which license you use, so if one grants the right to fork then there's nothing Winamp could do to prevent that. At best they could invalidate the one license they control, but even that seems iffy
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

squarefoot 2y ago

Interesting to see how would this play out in case of a lawsuit against an user who doesn't honor their license because it clashes with GH one. Anyway, that code has already been swallowed by some AI that will reorganize it, split in functional blocks and regurgitate it elsewhere someday, so too late for them to complain.

kube-system 2y ago
The GitHub ToS is not a software license. It is the terms for using the GitHub service. The penalty for breaking it is that your GitHub services might be terminated, not that they can somehow relicense your software.
- trehalose 2y ago
  This part of the ToS explicitly does grant such a license to other GitHub users. > 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).
  - efilife 2y ago
    It would seem that Github's TOS is superior to their license. They could have chosen other way to host their code
  - IgorPartola 2y ago
    As written, this says that you can fork a repo but can’t then clone it and work on it on your own machine. Isn’t software licensing fun?
    - skeaker 2y ago
      Interesting. I guess you could just stick to the Github web editor to stay compliant? Really a terrible way to go about things though

thomastjeffery 2y ago

IANAL... By creating an account on GitHub, you agree to this license. That seems like a pretty strong precedent for precedence.

avodonosov 2y ago

Different meaning of "forking". "modified/derived version" vs "copy"

Etheryte 2y ago

There is no conflict here. The quote from Github's ToS means you allow others to copy the source code you've made public, it cannot and does not give you any rights regarding what you do with the code beyond that. Points one and two of the Winamp license quote are essentially one and the same, just worded in a different way for clarity.

SixtyHurtz 2y ago
The GitHub ToS states: > 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. It would be weird to have a license that lets me create a fork in my own repo, but doesn't permit me to distribute it. If I create a fork of a public repo on GH, I require a license to distribute it because a public repo can be forked or downloaded by anyone. I can't them doing doing it. Therefore permission to further distribute is required for participation on GH.
- unilynx 2y ago
  > If I create a fork of a public repo on GH, I require a license to distribute it because a public repo can be forked or downloaded by anyone Why? The users that clone or fork your fork of the original repository are covered by the original repository's "license" GitHub grants itself, not yours.
  - SixtyHurtz 2y ago
    Because if I didn't have a license then that would mean I would be liable for infringement every time someone downloaded it from GH. That's exactly why GH has the TOS that it has - so that nobody can be sued for just using GH when a rights holder uploads their own work to a public GH repo.

your_drunk_dad 2y ago

Time to report it to GH then.

slightwinder 2y ago

I guess they mean with "fork" a rebranded or self-compiled version. So unmodified source code, but different logo or name. Or compiled with different settings or for an unsupported platform. Something along that line. But calling this fork, after they are already forbidding modifications in point 1 is really strange phrasing.

mrgoldenbrown 2y ago

There are two distinct meanings of fork and you are conflating them I think. I suspect winamp's license is using the sense of the (pre GitHub) idea of creating a distinct version of a project maintained by a different group, and the GitHub ToS specifically refers to forking within the GitHub platform.

thomastjeffery 2y ago
What is the other meaning of fork? When you click "fork this repo" in GitHub, that clones the repository, and re-publishes it under your username. When you clone a repo to your system privately, that does not involve publishing. If this is their intended meaning of "fork", then this license must explicitly disallow cloning the repo!
- fooqux 2y ago
  > What is the other meaning of fork? The older, still in use today meaning is what happened when Oracle bought MySQL and ruined it. People forked it and now we have MariaDB. Basically, it means a fork in the code base and now there are two separate projects.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    Yes. Until Github came along, "Creating a copy of software for your own personal use" had never been widely-accepted definition of the word "fork" in the context of software development. Forking a project has always involved independent publication and maintenance of said project.
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      The typical way of copying a project for your own personal use on GitHub involves publishing that copy on GitHub. So, it is a real fork—maybe not a well maintained one, or one that the author is particularly excited about, though!
  - thomastjeffery 2y ago