It doesn’t matter what the license say, because GitHub TOS (that everybody agree on when registering their account) explicitly allows forking any project hosted on GitHub, regardless of the project’s license.
Nope not according to the license. Now is the license change legit and allowed? I don’t know
Matriks404@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
DasSkelett@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
Copyright is always about distribution. So yes, you are allowed to fork, but you are not allowed to distribute the copyrighted content to other people. And with the No Derivatives clause you are also not allowed to change it. You might be able to stay in the gray are by telling everyone “build it yourself”, but nobody would be allowed to package it either.
woelkchen@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
To write a script that checks out upstream code and compiles it locally is not a distribution by a 3rd party. The code comes directly from Stenzek. That’s why he puts the Arch check there.
If that script happens to do a search and replace of archlinux with some random jibberish (so the check is no longer for archlinux), that’s still not a distribution of modified code because all code modifications happen locally.
iglou@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
I’m far from an expert on licenses, but logic tells me that any version that was released with the previous license is still under that previous license. So it’s probably onay to fork from a previous version to maintain linux support?
Bilaketari@reddthat.com 4 weeks ago
That’s actually the version that’s in the AUR, since they can’t put newer (fixed) code in there from the new versions).
woelkchen@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
AUR can. It’s just locally checking out the code from git and compiling it locally as well. I’m not a pro AUR maintainer but I’m not aware of a single AUR entry that ships software source code directly from AUR.