this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
714 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
74055 readers
4257 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nope not according to the license. Now is the license change legit and allowed? I don't know
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 okay to fork from a previous version to maintain linux support?
That's actually the version that's in the AUR, since they can't put newer (fixed) code in there from the new versions.
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.
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.
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.
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.