21–30 of 34 posts
Not all: only of few of my repos have been cloned. But it's open sauce, right? Mine are Apache, so this is fine? As long as I can log in with "hunter2" as my password, it's definitely all fine. %-P
Surely almost all publicly available GitHub repos permit making a clone of them in their license?
> [...] and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality
Use, display, and perform through the GitHub Service are permitted according to the GitHub ToS, but not reproduce except on GitHub, unless further rights are granted with a license.
Surely almost all publicly available GitHub repos permit making a clone of them in their license?
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... > [...] and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality Use, display, and perform through the GitHub Service are permitted according to the GitHub ToS, but not reproduce except on GitHub, unless further rights are granted with a license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... > [...] and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality Use, display, and perform through the GitHub Service are permitted according to the GitHub ToS, but not reproduce except on GitHub, unless further rights are granted with a license.
Are there examples of cloned repos that don't grant these further rights?
GitHub and GitCode do not provide an easy way to search for these, so you will have to scrape the API and clone the repos to find out the ratio of FOSS/restrictive/no license.
Many people are talking about how it's mirrored not stolen, and this is permitted since it's open source. Let's put legal perspective and semantics aside - cloning all of GitHub into something called GitCode (which btw straight up stole GitHub's UX) is unethical. No one running these projects is expecting a pure clone to appear en masse onto another competing site. It's extremely distasteful and should be shamed.
Eh, the vast majority of people running these projects don’t care where it’s hosted. The reason it’s on GitLab is because it was a free and easy place to put code in the first place. Mirroring was extremely common when the internet was slower. There is absolutely nothing unethical here in relationship to the project owners themselves. This possibly might be damaging to GitHub themselves but even that is a stretch. I…
It could disrupt the community because for issues and pull requests created on GitCode, the original maintainers are likely not going to receive any notifications and they will just be ignored.
GitCode also did not make it clear that those repos are mirrored from GitHub in an obvious way, especially on the organization or user pages, e.g. https://archive.is/su9h5. IANAL, but this looks like impersonation to me.
A sibling comment also mentioned that CSDN is publishing machine-generated blog posts about cloned projects with a link to GitCode. I believe this is even more unethical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there examples of cloned repos that don't grant these further rights?
Any repository without a LICENSE file or license grant in code or README, and I could create one in a few minutes. GitHub and GitCode do not provide an easy way to search for these, so you will have to scrape the API and clone the repos to find out the ratio of FOSS/restrictive/no license.
My repos had their open source license available, so I guess we'll need to wait to see actual examples of illicit copies.
I wonder what they do with the user accounts though, might I be able to access it somehow? Or someone else..
One interesting thing is they seem to have also cloned the number of stars each repo has on GitHub. At least that’s true for a cursory check of a few that I’ve committed to. If you click on the star count you’ll then see two separate counts for GitHub and GitCode stars. It’s one thing to mirror the repos, but it’s another to initially misrepresent the interactivity the repo is getting, even if they’re clear about it…
https://www.landiannews.com/archives/104677.html
Some users have reported that despite authorizing through GitHub, they are still unable to claim their namespace.
Yea, that checks out. I don't think I've ever had good experience with Chinese companies. It is like 90% of the product is marketing and form, rather than function. I bought some robotics stuff from a Chinese company. It became a paperweight because the documentation was a google drive folder that was a collection of code and random PDF files from various sources, mixed with some Chinese stuff. The branding was a 10/…
My view is that Huawei's involvement is likely primarily aimed at helping to establish package repositories for its Harmony OS and OpenEuler (such as [ohpm](https://ohpm.openharmony.cn/#/cn/home)), which require (real-name) identity verification via mobile phone numbers for package publishing.
Let's see. https://github.com/Good-Luck-CSDN/OSS-License-With-Unlimited...