JemmyWinampDesktop/winamp - Licence violates github TOS · Issue #6
makmariangithub.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/issues/6
9 Comments
Comments from other communities
HiddenLayer555Deleted by author
Deeply confused by what the hell this is
Lemmchen
jevans ⁂I feel like this repo is bait. The license is bad and violates the TOS but if they can convince a judge that it’s legally binding then they already have over a hundred targets who have forked it. They really messed up by including the shoutcast source and some Dolby code, although the Dolby stuff is questionable.
JohnEdwaIf 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. -https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users
License can’t really revoke that.
JustEnoughDucksTrue, but the same judge who would say that this means Github’s AI tools can harvest and regurgitate code that you upload as its own would have a good chance of ruling that the Winamp BS license is valid and the forkers have to fork over money.
But there is the fact that the company is based in Brussels and their license apparently breaks Belgian law 😂
badcodecatawesome issue
djangoOmg, gotta clone the repo, before they remove it. 😂
fireshellI was particularly pleased that the developers accidentally published a bunch of other code that they had not planned to publish. For example, the code from the ShoutCAST server. github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/issues/11
gnuplot surprisingly also has a strange license, containing “Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to distribute the complete modified source code.”
BaleineYou left out the end: "Modifications are to
- be distributed as patches to the released version. Permission to
- distribute binaries produced by compiling modified sources is granted,
- provided you"
I feel most people are fundamentally misunderstanding what forking means.
Generally, forking means making a copy and modifying it.
Github, however, seems to define “fork” as just making a copy.
So, in fact there is no “TOS violation”. The license forbids making a copy and modifying it, while github requires that you allow making copies. There is no conflict between the two.
Even if it were, just having a license that contradicts the github TOS is not a TOS violation (unless that is separately mentioned somewhere).
BrikoXYou have to make a fork aka copy and modify to contribute via pull requests. The license is fundamentally broken.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with Github TOS. It does not require you to accept or even allow pull requests.
I’m not sure if it’s spelled out in the ToS, but there is no way to prevent pull requests on public repos, it’s a functional requirement.
Obligatory Weekend at Winamp’s.
Okay, i chuckled at this one
This might be a dumb question but is Winamp still FOSS?
As far as I know the WCL isn’t known as being an OSI approved license
It was never Foss
It’s now source available
Looking online it looks like everyone’s dunking on this half-assed attempt of…something🤔
No, it’s licence violates, well, pretty much the entire open source definition
People still use winamp? Is there nothing better out there? I didn't understand a word of what's going on in that issue, honestly. You aren't allowed to fork? Didn't know you could fork code. Can you also spoon it or knife it? Maybe cut, slice and dice it?
I like to use it on my 4k monitor, the super tiny buttons make me super nostalgic
it still whips the llamas ass.