• Wimopy@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months 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
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months 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.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Am I just bad at reading? It says the right to make changes is granted to everyone one Earth. That would include the last person to make a commit as well, assuming they’re a citizen of Earth. I’m sure what you’re saying is what it’s supposed to say, but it isn’t actually what it says.

        • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          All rights reserved by…, except the right to commit to this repository.

          Being a legal license it requires much more rigorous and clear statement

          • stankmut@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            You can’t just ignore the second part of that sentence which gives the right to make commits to all citizens of earth. That would include the person who wrote the last commit.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months 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.

  • Artyom@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    But in a moment of legal discovery, it was found that “GitLab Support Bot” always owns the repository since it creates the merge commit after CI runs.

  • raldone01@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    There are a few flaws.

    There should be a clause forcing it to remain open source. Another clause should be that the license must not be changed. A warrenty and liability disclaimer would be also good. Otherwise a splendid license.

    • jnk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I would 100% use this HPL-v2 for all of my (temporary) foss projects. It’s just genius. I mean, good luck keeping track of the current owner, Nintendo lawyers.