• Wimopy@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month 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
      1 month 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.

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

  • roguetrick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    A self revoking license. You can only use or distribute this software if you’ve made the last commit.