• Wimopy@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok, I might be misunderstanding here, but since committing changes is allowed for everyone, doesn’t this mean fixing bugs is something you could do? You’d just be stuck with all the other rights as well until someone else makes a change.

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The main dev made the last commit, so they dont have the right to make another commit, until they arent the last person to make a commit anymore (until someone else has made a commit). This makes sure that there are at least 2 people making commits but hopefully much more.

      In other words, making a commit revokes your right to do so until someone else makes a commit.

      • zewm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The fact that you have 38 upvotes with such an incorrect statement is mind boggling.

        This is how politics works I supposed. Write something that sounds plausible but is completely incorrect, inaccurate or completely fabricated and stupid people applaud and follow.

        • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Its ok to be unable to read, but dont make that other peoples problem.

          https://github.com/ErikMcClure/bad-licenses/blob/master/hot-potato-license

          This is copied from V2 but same thing:

          All rights reserved by the last person to commit a change to this repository,

          No explanation needed

          except for the right to commit changes to this repository,

          Also no explanation needed

          which is hereby granted to all inhabitants of the Milky Way Galaxy for the purpose of committing changes to this repository.

          This refers to the previous section meaning everyone can make commits to the repository except for the person excluded by that same section

          • brisk@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            A right not being reserved does not mean it is waived, only that it is not exclusive. The last person to commit still has the right to commit, as does everyone else.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      the fact that there are this many people having different interpretations shows that the license would need waaaaaay clearer wording to hold any sort of water.

      this is why i hate licenses like WTFPL and its ilk, just saying “do whatever” cannot possibly be legally viable and thus using anything with such a license is impossible by anyone who cares about copyright law (such as say, companies).

      If you want your creations to be free for all to use, just slap a fat CC0 on it.

      • MNByChoice@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The last person cannot revoke the right to make commits.

        I have no idea what that implies about the right to change the license.

  • RiQuY@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    The secret license everyone gets while working for an enterprise. If the previous dude left, good luck changing anything.

  • uservoid1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What happen when the repository is getting forked? Goofing with the license is all haha fun till nasty lawyers get into the picture and you get all sort of liability claims

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ofcourse its legally binding. If you include a license text with your own code on a platform that doesnt have a clause to license your code under different terms, then that license is legally valid.

        But writing the license yourself without making sure that it doesnt allow for any legal loopholes is a bad idea.

      • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You declaring a debt isn’t meaningful because you don’t have legal authority to do so.

        A licence statement is describing in what way you’re granting permission for something you do have the right to control, which makes it meaningful

      • bitfucker@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think the license being used is not legally binding? What constitutes as legally binding to you?

    • Faresh@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think this is a sort of anti-license, so I think the sort of people who use it reject copyright law.

  • souperk@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    So that’s the legal equivalent of the guy committing 10k changes the day before leaving the company…