• dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    They are nuts. Their license means that you give up all of your authorship rights to the code you contribute, and on top of that you’re not allowed to distribute modified source, nor can you fork the source for any purpose.

    Edit: lol

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I guess, opening a PR without forking is possible, but hey that’s sort of incredibly bullshit idea

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      Does that actually matter?
      I’m asking because license stuff is over my head, but I’d like to learn about it more.

      • Kissaki@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        If you only care about contributing improvements, no, it doesn’t matter.

        If you want to at least be recognized as an author, and be able to say “I made this”, the license opposes that.

        Waiver of Rights: You waive any rights to claim authorship of the contributions […]

        I don’t know how they intend to accept contributions though. I guess code blocks in tickets or patch files? Forking is not allowed, so the typical fork + branch + create a pull request does not work.

          • projectmoon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            14 hours ago

            Not necessarily. While of course in many many cases, open source is a volunteer effort, there’s usually some implicit transaction going on. Whether that’s improving the software for yourself and passing that on to others, being a business and improving a library or something you use that helps your project generate revenue, or even a straight up commercial transaction.

            But in all these cases, the open source project can be taken by you (or others) and you can do whatever you want with it. In the case of Winamp here, you cannot do any of that. It would be different if they were paying for contributions. But they’re not, so.

            • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Yeah. You’re talking about 0.0001% of the users though. For everyone else it’s “I don’t want to pay for this”.

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        15 hours ago

        The way I look at it is this: I want credit for the work I do, I should also be able to fork a repo that I work on, and I sure as hell don’t like giving up my rights if I can help it.

        But others may feel different.

  • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I love GitHub drama.

    Anyone know if the Dolby code leak is going to lead to anything interesting, or had this code been leaked before? And how fucked are the Winamp folks?

  • onlinepersona@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    The open source community is really showing itself from the best side by harassing the devs of that repo. I’m sure the devs don’t regret publishing the code…

    Sure, the license isn’t the best, but that’s no way to act. With such childish behaviour from contributors, I’d have just taken the code down again. Bunch of children.

    Anti Commercial-AI license