• dohpaz42
    link
    fedilink
    English
    90
    edit-2
    7 months 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

    • @TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      14
      edit-2
      7 months ago

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

          • projectmoon
            link
            fedilink
            237 months 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
              -147 months 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”.

      • @Kissaki@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        157 months 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.

        • Amju Wolf
          link
          fedilink
          77 months ago

          Also, this isn’t even compatible with copyright law in some countries. I.e here you can’t give up authorship at all; you can only grant an irrevocable, perpetual license (that might even prohibit you from distribution yourself and such) but you’ll always be able to say “I made this” no matter what their license says.

      • dohpaz42
        link
        fedilink
        English
        87 months 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.

    • lad
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27 months ago

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

  • 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
    -19
    edit-2
    7 months 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

    • Soviet Pigeon
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      This whole thing sounds more like a way to get some pull requests to fix their product for free. That’s not open source. The source code is simply available, that’s all. In the first run they even prohibited to fork it (!!!) while it is necessary to work on this project. They may fixed it, but you are still not allowed to do anything with it, only provide free work. Of course people are not happy with it.

      They should delete this repo and change their license if they want contributors for free. Or just hire programmers for money.

      • @onlinepersona@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        07 months ago

        Of course people are not happy with it.

        Of course. I’m not happy about many things, but that doesn’t give me the right to harass somebody. Pointing out something politely is very different from jumping on a bandwagon and spamming an issue, or creating meme issues and meme pull requests. We should be better than that.

        Is that really what we want? Anything slightly popular making a misstep to be hounded by an online mob?

        Anti Commercial-AI license

        • Soviet Pigeon
          link
          fedilink
          37 months ago

          Of course. I’m not happy about many things, but that doesn’t give me the right to harass somebody.

          They are not being harassed, but are being shown in this way that their intentions and behavior are more than just shit

          Pointing out something politely is very different from jumping on a bandwagon and spamming an issue, or creating meme issues and meme pull requests. We should be better than that.

          Is that really what we want? Anything slightly popular making a misstep to be hounded by an online mob?

          This is not a misstep. They just don’t want to hire developers for Winamp and rather try to outsource the work to others for no cost. And then they call it copyleft while forbidding anyone to do anything else with the source code except sending them pull requests. That’s disrespectful, rude and simply shameless. This is fully calculated, not a misstep. If it was just a misstep, then I would agree with you about these meme pull requests and so on. Saying this, I absolutely understand why the receive such “feedback”.