> By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).
[1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
When you click "fork this repo" in GitHub, that clones the repository, and re-publishes it under your username.
When you clone a repo to your system privately, that does not involve publishing. If this is their intended meaning of "fork", then this license must explicitly disallow cloning the repo!
The older, still in use today meaning is what happened when Oracle bought MySQL and ruined it. People forked it and now we have MariaDB. Basically, it means a fork in the code base and now there are two separate projects.
Until Github came along, "Creating a copy of software for your own personal use" had never been widely-accepted definition of the word "fork" in the context of software development. Forking a project has always involved independent publication and maintenance of said project.
When you fork a project on GitHub, that literally creates a parallel working history, and publishes it under your username. That's what GitHub means by "fork".
So what's the other definition?
This sort of argument change how people understand words, and it also doesn't change how lawyers interpret laws nearly as often as people think. It's still fun, though!
By "ruined" you must mean "solved decades-long issues and turned it into a real database", or we're talking about two different projects.
https://dev.mysql.com/blog-archive/the-complete-list-of-new-...
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.4/en/mysql-nutshell.html
Do note that the largest users (like GitHub and Facebook) still use the original MySQL, and AFAIK have no plans to abandon it.
https://docs.github.com/en/organizations/managing-organizati...
If they were trying to grant a narrow permission and then enjoin someone they thought was outside of their definition, it would matter (But they just aren't giving permission to distribute modified versions).
So, essentially, winamp license means nothing. They already forfeited their right to deny you forking by posting it on GitHub.
But the senses are importantly different right? In the former, we are talking about clearly psychological assertions, in the form of skepticism, within an otherwise shared world.
Here it is clearly rhetorical though, right? Talking to GP as if they were LLM. Using it for a not-so-shorthand for "I believe you to be wrong about this".
Its really not a big deal. It's just interesting, I guess, how much the tools tend to master us and change us while we lie to ourselves that its the other way around.
Also, hadn't heard "acid flashbacks" in a long time.. Still waiting for mine!
Perhaps you can say that to a friend as banter or in a tongue-in-cheek way, similarly to how you might say "I must be hallucinating" about yourself. But as an argument in a discussion with a stranger, it seems rather dismissive and inappropriate.
And it does reek a bit like something stolen from LLM terminology.
> 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 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)
So, on GitHub, we can "use", "perform", and "reproduce". Does editing/modifying fall under any of those verbs?
> 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.
It would be weird to have a license that lets me create a fork in my own repo, but doesn't permit me to distribute it. If I create a fork of a public repo on GH, I require a license to distribute it because a public repo can be forked or downloaded by anyone. I can't them doing doing it. Therefore permission to further distribute is required for participation on GH.
Why?
The users that clone or fork your fork of the original repository are covered by the original repository's "license" GitHub grants itself, not yours.
"modified/derived version" vs "copy"
At best they could invalidate the one license they control, but even that seems iffy
Whichever one runs up the attorney's bill the highest.
There is only 1 license, and it is issued by the WinAmp copyright holders. No additional license is created by hosting a repository on GitHub. The only (extremely theoretical) issue would be between GitHub and the WinAmp folks, if GH believed that WinAmp is violating its TOS.
By creating an account on GitHub, you agree to this license. That seems like a pretty strong precedent for precedence.