No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form. * No Forking: You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked ...
How about you continue reading a bit further, until you hit the word “and”.
take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development
(emphasis mine).
Github defines “forking” as just copying, while normally it is understood as copying + further development (creating a “fork” in the development history, hence the name).
@sweng No need, I can instead continue reading the “license” and see the word “or”.
> You may not create, maintain, or distribute
They disallow creating copies. Plus other things, but already creating the fork by either definition is disallowed. Not to mention, wikipedia is not a legal document while the TOS is, the double-quotes are used because that’s the first time a new term is used, followed by its definition, and that the license is likely using Github’s definition, not wikipedia’s
Why on earth would the license use Github’s very niche definition? “Forking” as a software concept has been around for decades longer than Github or it’s “fork” button has existed.
Also, how about reading the full psragraph?
You may not create, maintain, or distribute a forked version of the software.
(emphasis mine). It only does what you think it does if forking = copying. Which it doesn’t.
Question to you: Github provides a button labeled “Download ZIP” for downloading a .zip-file containing the source. If I press that button, am I in your opinion creating a fork?
@sweng And to your question: I’d say no, downloading as zip is not a fork, either by github TOS (because they say the copy must be in a repo) nor by the license, because they specifically define the term “Modify”, and saying that an exact copy is ok, as long as you don’t distribute it or “fork” it - which is exactly why “fork” here means the “Fork” button of github.
Do you think that Download ZIP = fork? It sounds to me like it doesn’t fit the wikipedia definition either, so what’s your point?
So you also agree that copying is not forking as it is commonly understood?
Do you then claim that the license refers ro “fork” as defined in a specific service’s TOS (without referencing said servixe at all)?
Otherwise I don’t see how you can come to the conclusion that “forking” in the license does not also necessify modification (which is what the common meaning is).
@sweng I simply don’t agree that your “common” definition is really the “common” one. Fork is a fork if you created a copy in another repo. Immediately in that moment, even without a new commit. Clearly that’s what the “Fork” button does. Not zip, that’s not a fork. Nor a private copy, unavailable to anyone else. This fits both the definition from the license, and the TOS, and all instances of “forking” that I’ve seen before.
@sweng It’s much more likely that the term follows the github’s definition, because it’s on github, rather than the wikipedia’s definition, because why would it? You keep hanging on one word in a wikipedia article, let me fix that article and maybe we can stop this nonsense discussion.
@sweng
> take a copy of source code
?
@sweng
Look, I can’t help you if you don’t even read the things you are posting. 🤷♂️
How about you continue reading a bit further, until you hit the word “and”.
(emphasis mine).
Github defines “forking” as just copying, while normally it is understood as copying + further development (creating a “fork” in the development history, hence the name).
@sweng No need, I can instead continue reading the “license” and see the word “or”.
> You may not create, maintain, or distribute
They disallow creating copies. Plus other things, but already creating the fork by either definition is disallowed. Not to mention, wikipedia is not a legal document while the TOS is, the double-quotes are used because that’s the first time a new term is used, followed by its definition, and that the license is likely using Github’s definition, not wikipedia’s
An article exactly about how Github misuses the word “fork”: https://drewdevault.com/2019/05/24/What-is-a-fork.html
Why on earth would the license use Github’s very niche definition? “Forking” as a software concept has been around for decades longer than Github or it’s “fork” button has existed.
Also, how about reading the full psragraph?
(emphasis mine). It only does what you think it does if forking = copying. Which it doesn’t.
Question to you: Github provides a button labeled “Download ZIP” for downloading a .zip-file containing the source. If I press that button, am I in your opinion creating a fork?
@sweng And to your question: I’d say no, downloading as zip is not a fork, either by github TOS (because they say the copy must be in a repo) nor by the license, because they specifically define the term “Modify”, and saying that an exact copy is ok, as long as you don’t distribute it or “fork” it - which is exactly why “fork” here means the “Fork” button of github.
Do you think that Download ZIP = fork? It sounds to me like it doesn’t fit the wikipedia definition either, so what’s your point?
So you also agree that copying is not forking as it is commonly understood?
Do you then claim that the license refers ro “fork” as defined in a specific service’s TOS (without referencing said servixe at all)?
Otherwise I don’t see how you can come to the conclusion that “forking” in the license does not also necessify modification (which is what the common meaning is).
@sweng I simply don’t agree that your “common” definition is really the “common” one. Fork is a fork if you created a copy in another repo. Immediately in that moment, even without a new commit. Clearly that’s what the “Fork” button does. Not zip, that’s not a fork. Nor a private copy, unavailable to anyone else. This fits both the definition from the license, and the TOS, and all instances of “forking” that I’ve seen before.
@sweng
> Why on earth would the license use Github’s very niche definition?
Maybe because it’s ON GITHUB??
Thst’s not at all how it works. The definitions made in the TOS do not “leak” out of said TOS (unless the TOS specifies that, which it does not).
@sweng It’s much more likely that the term follows the github’s definition, because it’s on github, rather than the wikipedia’s definition, because why would it? You keep hanging on one word in a wikipedia article, let me fix that article and maybe we can stop this nonsense discussion.