Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why archive was down?
It's WWII all over again with switched roles, and hacktivits DDOSed archive.org
What in the world does that sentence even mean in this context?
Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
251–260 of 371 posts
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah you misunderstand. All free software licenses grant you additional rights on top of copyright law. These rights allow you to make copies of the software given certain conditions . If you violate them then they do not apply and only copyright law applies so any copies you made are illegal.
>copyright law applies First that's not true and even if that would be only true in the US. Since the US is not THE "law" you cant say that. Also: >Under the current law, works created on or after January 1, 1978, have a copyright term of life of the author plus seventy years after the author's death. https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ So when Gates dies and i violate Microsofts License 7 years later i can…
Under US law, for works created by companies the term is a flat 95 years from publication, so MS-DOS 6.22 will become public domain on January 1 2090.
You and I will likely be dead.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just the reality of any platform that doesn't gatekeep who gets to participate. Eventually assholes are going to join, that's simply unavoidable.
Putting anything to a public environment, always assume an actively hostile environment. No matter how many well-meaning users you may have; if it's more then a handful, there will always be enough jerks who would try to ruin the show for everyone. To my mind, premoderation is the way. Any new user's submissions go to the premoderation queue for review, not otherwise visible. Noise and spam can be rejected automatica…
One thing I wish the tech companies would do is to use LLMs for junk moderation. At least to flag potential junk.
Meta uses they LLMs to summarize comments already and can do this, yet they choose to allow obvious crypto scammers, T-shirt scams, “hey add me comments”.
A simple LLM prompt of “is this post possibly a scam”, especially for new accounts, would do wonders. GitHub could likely do it too.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
The troll issues are exactly why my OSS group does not use GitHub at all. It's become a toxic platform for quite awhile.
That's just the reality of any platform that doesn't gatekeep who gets to participate. Eventually assholes are going to join, that's simply unavoidable.
I run an app that Serves a small, specific demographic.
We get about 50% [obvious] spam/scam signups (only 5 or 6 a day).
That’s pretty sobering, when you consider that it’s a very low-profile, unpromoted, region-locked (US, Canada, Ireland, and India), iOS-only native app.
We vet each signup manually.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#255> In seeking to remove offending files with a simple deletion instead of a rebase, Winamp kept it available to those who know Git mechanics
"Those who know Git mechanics" in this case is talking about extremely simple Git mechanics. Those who know more advanced Git mechanics would know that even a rebase is not sufficient to solve the problem of having pushed up secrets.
Aside from the obvious problem of all the forks and previously-cloned copies, the offending commits will still also be available on GitHub (at least until the next garbage collection), they'll just have the message "This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository."
Any links that include the old hash will still be available online and will still turn up the code you tried to delete.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not true. Censorship is the suppression of expression. Full stop. Anyone who controls a medium can do it. Only the U.S. government can violate the First Amendment to the Constitution. People often conflate the two. That censorship and First Amendment violations are one and the same. They are not. And the reason the U.S. government saw fit to restrict its ability to censor its public is because they recognized…
No. Censorship is when the government kicks down your door to arrest you for your wrongthink. People getting banned from some site or project because of obnoxious behavior is not censorship, it's just normal social activity and group homeostasis. They can always seek other ways to express themselves. They can buy a domain and blog about it. Dang rate limited my HN account because I got into too many controversial dis…
Why restrict the definition to political censorship? Surely there are such things as academic censorship, religious censorship, etc.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Actually, under the GPL, this fact is immaterial. If the Winamp player contained any GPL code at all, modified or not, then it is a derivative work of that GPL code and anyone receiving a copy of Winamp is entitled to demand the full corresponding source be provided under a GPL license. That's just not true, surely? Lest everyone using any flavour of Linux is liable to the same problem? How many apps out there are…
Yes, it's true. There's a reason GPL is called copyleft. > Lest everyone using any flavour of Linux is liable to the same problem? The kernel is GPL. applications running on it in usermode are not constrained by the license. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#PortProgramToGP...
You can have copyleft without virality; the Mozilla Public License 2.0 requires any modifications to a covered work to be released under the same license (copyleft), but does not extend this requirement to other code included in a combined work (virality). As I read the license, you could embed the Gecko browser engine in your proprietary e-reader software, and only your changes to the engine itself would have to be released as free software.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#258Plutono just did too. I've been trying to find any information on the topic, and haven't found anything.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Censorship is when the government kicks down your door to arrest you for your wrongthink. People getting banned from some site or project because of obnoxious behavior is not censorship, it's just normal social activity and group homeostasis. They can always seek other ways to express themselves. They can buy a domain and blog about it. Dang rate limited my HN account because I got into too many controversial dis…
Why restrict the definition to political censorship? Surely there are such things as academic censorship, religious censorship, etc.
Because none of those things have the force of law backing them.
Academic censorship? Start your own journal and publish there. Religious censorship? Start your own church and gather your followers. Forum censored you? Start your own website where they have zero say about anything and write about whatever you want.
Government censorship? You are screwed, and you go straight to jail if you try to break free and start your own.
Re: Winamp deletes entire GitHub source code repo after a rocky few weeks
#260> In seeking to remove offending files with a simple deletion instead of a rebase, Winamp kept it available to those who know Git mechanics "Those who know Git mechanics" in this case is talking about extremely simple Git mechanics. Those who know more advanced Git mechanics would know that even a rebase is not sufficient to solve the problem of having pushed up secrets. Aside from the obvious problem of all the fork…
> offending commits will still also be available on GitHub (at least until the next garbage collection),
No. Forever. Literally forever. GitHub does not run garbage collection, like, ever.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4367977/how-to-remove-a-...
Dangling commit from 14 years ago :
https://github.com/nylen/connectbot/commit/1cd775d
There is only one way to delete data on github permanently and that's to request it from github support. Still, you would have better luck just deleting your repository and starting over from scratch, deleting your history locally and pushing from a pristine state.