I feel like this repo is bait. The license is bad and violates the TOS but if they can convince a judge that it’s legally binding then they already have over a hundred targets who have forked it. They really messed up by including the shoutcast source and some Dolby code, although the Dolby stuff is questionable.

[-] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users. -https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users

License can't really revoke that.

[-] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 4 points 2 months ago

True, but the same judge who would say that this means Github's AI tools can harvest and regurgitate code that you upload as its own would have a good chance of ruling that the Winamp BS license is valid and the forkers have to fork over money.

But there is the fact that the company is based in Brussels and their license apparently breaks Belgian law 😂

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 3 points 2 months ago

@Dagamant

poor guy Jef, first day on github, immediately fired

[-] fireshell@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 months ago

I was particularly pleased that the developers accidentally published a bunch of other code that they had not planned to publish. For example, the code from the ShoutCAST server. https://github.com/WinampDesktop/winamp/issues/11

[-] pmk@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 months ago

gnuplot surprisingly also has a strange license, containing "Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to distribute the complete modified source code."

[-] Baleine@jlai.lu 3 points 2 months ago

You left out the end: "Modifications are to

be distributed as patches to the released version. Permission to
distribute binaries produced by compiling modified sources is granted,
provided you"

[-] sweng@programming.dev -1 points 2 months ago

I feel most people are fundamentally misunderstanding what forking means.

Generally, forking means making a copy and modifying it.

Github, however, seems to define "fork" as just making a copy.

So, in fact there is no "TOS violation". The license forbids making a copy and modifying it, while github requires that you allow making copies. There is no conflict between the two.

Even if it were, just having a license that contradicts the github TOS is not a TOS violation (unless that is separately mentioned somewhere).