101–110 of 345 posts
Wish they bothered to preserve the commit history... Can't imagine anything sensitive in there that they couldn't share.
-dro
"We take DirectX 9 SDK (June 2010) from Microsoft, modify it and pack to archive. Run unpack_microsoft_directx_sdk_2010.cmd to unpack it." Nice. Wonder how long will this version work?
If Winamp is broken on Windows N+1, it's Windows that is broken. If Winamp is broken on Wine, it's Wine that is broken.
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 dist…
You don't need to fork a repo to create a branch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure forking the repo would create a forked version of the 'software' if the fork's sole purpose is to develop a pull request. But I guess it's somewhat ambiguous langauge, and better safe then sorry when it comes to lawyers (which I'm not).
You're not allowed to "distribute" a fork, even in source form. Posting something on Github certainly smells a lot like distributing it.
They rolled their own license but couldn't be bothered to read GitHub's ToS.
"collaborative" license, "opened to the community", "enabling the entire community to participate in its development", "global collaboration" but you have to grant them perpetual rights and waive your own, you're not even allowed to fork lol.
Seems like they're only looking for unpaid workers.
Wish they bothered to preserve the commit history... Can't imagine anything sensitive in there that they couldn't share.
That'd mean they'd have to do more work then necessary & there'd at most only ever be what went back to the stripped down 5.666 code deliverable they got after it was sold on from AOL at the start of 2014 (was looked into but determined not worth the hassle when that was being sorted out at the time). -dro
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
To take a more practical example. Is there no meaningful difference between the dwm multimon patch files[1] and the full forked repo[2]? For context, lots of suckless software keeps extra features/addons in semi-offical out of tree patches files. The philosophy of suckless is generally to hardcode config options in source code and recompile instead of editing .rc files. This reduces the complexity of the code, so you end up with some very minimalistic easy to patch recompile and code. So it's a natural (if very esoteric) way of implementing plugins.
Obviously this is a bit contrived because all the suckless code is actually open source, so none of this matters to them. But I think it's fair to say that distributing the 7 .patch files at [1] wouldn't count as distributing a forked version of dwm. The patch files contain some context lines ripped straight from the main codebase, but not the main repo. Hell I'd even wonder if there's some kind of fair use argument for patch files. After all, often they boil down to a criticism of the codebase, saying that it's bad because it contains all the lines of code starting with '-' signs and really would be better if it had these extra lines of code after the '+' signs.
The license doesn't seem contradictory to me. Counter-intuitive, unclear, and paradoxical (in the most general sense of the word), yes. But not contradictory.
[0] Looks like the longest codes are 32 digits of hex long: https://archive.org/details/GameGenieSNESCodebookProgramming...
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 dist…
The Github ToS gives users the right to fork any public repos.