this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2026
15 points (100.0% liked)

Fediverse

2308 readers
87 users here now

Welcome!

Can you imagine, years ago how the internet was before? We know Facebook, Twitter, Tiktok, Youtube. We knew blogger, Tumblr, Skyrock... and long before, it was the forum era as phpBB..and mail-lists.

And now with ActivityPub, we are reshaping the web, and achieving much more with lots of freedom. So thank you all, and welcome 🤟😁

Our threads

Wiki

Resources

Related communities

If you want to donate, double check on the official website and report any problem to mod team

Social network

Threadiverse

Selfhosting on Mobile
Holos | git | donate

FediBlog

Microblog

Event

Mediaverse

Audio

Streaming/live

Book

Culture review

Picture

Podcast

Short-video

Video

FediMarket


Image Credits :
Avatar : Wikipedia Eukombos
Banner : David Revoy licence : CC-BY-4.0

Rules

Moderation process
We all make mistakes,

If your comment is reported, and brings up a complex issue, we will reach out to you and ask you to rephrase it.

Our goal, is to create a serene space for discussion. Nothing more.

If the post isn't edited to remove hurtful language element, we will have to remove it. It would be a shame because your comment was interesting and you took some time to write it.

In case of xenophobia, racism, transphobia, homophobia or harassment, it will be a permanent ban.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This is my first open source project, apart from tiny bits of code that no one ever paid any attention to. Maybe I don’t know how to do open source properly, maybe I made a mistake here. Let’s find out.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mschae@discuss.mschae23.de 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The Piefed author should merge all that code right back in, but use git format-patch for both commits so Git authorship is preserved.

Instead of doing that, I'd just fetch their commits and merge them directly. That has the added benefit of not generating new commits with new hashes (making it easier on the fork's side). If the original commits were signed, it would also preserve those signatures.

Neither project has copyright notices in preamble comments at the top of files, or an AUTHORS.txt, or any other kind of copyright notice. Therefore there is no copyright notice to preserve as stipulated by the AGPL.

Agreed on this part though. Although the license, under section 5, states “a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.” One could maybe argue this wasn't done for the second change, but if that were to be merged in properly with git attribution intact (which also includes timestamps), that should also be fine.

I had a browse of what they’d done and saw something cool that I wanted PieFed to have too [...]

This is definitely in line with the free software philosophy. It should be possible to include others' improvements to your project, if you've already got their modified source code. And “stealing” code is not even a thing (it's copyright infringement at worst, never theft).

[–] turdas@suppo.fi 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Although the license, under section 5, states “a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.” One could maybe argue this wasn't done for the second change

In this case there was no modification as the code was copied verbatim.

[–] mschae@discuss.mschae23.de 1 points 1 week ago

True, I didn't consider that (though there may have been modifications made after the code was copied?). In that case, section 4 would apply, which only requires keeping notices intact, and there aren't any as you said.

It does have this clause:

[...] provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;

A bit unsure in how that should be taken in this case. There weren't any notices in the fork, and the copyright information is otherwise the same (the LICENSE file). This could also be taken to mean attribution, maybe (since most copyright notices include the author's name), in which case git author info would've probably been enough too.