Should Not Be On Github

[nq4t]

Github is for open source projects.

This is not open source. This is source-available. If you want people to do unpaid work; you should find some interns or run your own CVS for this nonsense.

Again, this is not an open-source project. Your project does not align with any of the accepted OSLs. This is a made-up license that is not open and a total violation of the open source spirit.

The open source community are not your unpaid interns. Taking contributions and applying copyright is wrong.

Reconsider your actions.

[HughF]

Umm, all the commercial software companies with private GitHub repos want a word with you…

GitHub is for however you want to use it.

[MichaelAgarkov]

private GitHub repos

[Anu6is]

private or not, GitHub is not for open source project only... 😕

[nq4t]

private or not, GitHub is not for open source project only... 😕

There are a lot of non-open projects on here...sure. They also don't pretend to be open. They're very clear about this.

This...however...was pushed as open-source in the lead-up, and then we find out it's not only not open...but it's basically trying to manipulate free labor out of a community.

The license itself even states it's copy-left before having terms that make it, not copyleft. They even say they get the copyright. If they get the copyright on my code, how is that a copyleft license?

The Open Source Community is really in the dirt right now for all kinds of reasons; projects like this is one of them. The fact is they're only here for exposure. A private git is not that difficult to set-up and run.

[deimosian]

Not to mention that they're violating the GitHub TOS by posting it with the license it has, if you make a repo public on GitHub you must allow forks by others for them to make w/e changes they want.

[Anu6is]

I don't see any restrictions on Forking

You are granted the right to view, access, and study the source code of the software. You are granted the right to Modify the software for private use only. You may make, run, and propagate Covered works that you do not Convey, without conditions, so long as your License otherwise remains in force.

• No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form.
• Official Distribution: Only the maintainers of the official repository are allowed to distribute the software and its modifications.

[francoism90]

No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form.

This makes me believe Radionomy doesn't want to pay any developers, but wants to profit by using the community for free.

I really loved Winamp in the 90s/00s, but it has become a mess after the AOL sell.

[deimosian]

I don't see any restrictions on Forking

You are granted the right to view, access, and study the source code of the software. You are granted the right to Modify the software for private use only. You may make, run, and propagate Covered works that you do not Convey, without conditions, so long as your License otherwise remains in force.

• No Distribution of Modified Versions: You may not distribute modified versions of the software, whether in source or binary form.
• Official Distribution: Only the maintainers of the official repository are allowed to distribute the software and its modifications.

Then you can't read. Forking is distribution.

[Anu6is]

That's only if you share the modified fork

[deimosian]

That's only if you share the fork

Forks of public repositories are public too... this is just how GitHub works and Winamp must comply as they agreed to the TOS by using and posting.

[LokiFawkes]

Forking is distribution. Forks of public repos are public. Public repos are distribution. Forking is distribution.
Contribution on Github, thus requires distribution of modifications.
If you modify the code in your fork, you violate the license. If you fork and don't modify, you violate the license.
The license violates Github's TOS and impersonates copyleft by declaring itself copyleft. We have legal definitions for copyleft.
Everyone report the repo for impersonation.