Upgraded the license and creating files for the repository. #2296
Conversation
|
Why do we need 10 more files just for license change? All of those things are already described either in README or GitHub itself. The only file changes needed would be LICENSE (with new license text) and README (with short license notice). In README, there is already an installation and usage section and documentation. Short license notice (LICENSE file in your changes) should also be just added to section of README. Change log and contributors are also displayed on GitHub website (change log is in GitHub Releases, contributors are also displayed automatically on list), so additional files are useless. Yes, this is how FSF recommends things, but these recommendations were created a long time before GitHub had all these features and now they (recommendations) are basically useless. Multiple license-related files will also confuse GitHub to show "view license file"/"unknown license" instead of correct license and most modern open-source projects just use single LICENSE file with short notice in README. |
|
@filips123
Each file has a very specific purpose:
You can't use the single The |
And? Then I don't give a damn about your unnecessary files.
Each of this purposes is already supported directly on GitHub website. |
|
Than go and fuck yourself! This files stay in my repository this way and you must upgrade the license in yours because ZeroNet is distributed illegally in this very moment! |
|
Explain why are these files needed if GitHub shows the same information on their website. Also, if I say "The project is licensed under GPLv3+" in README and include GPLv3 text in LICENSE, why won't this be OK? From GitHub documentation:
|
|
Sure, let them stay this way in your repository. But please don't affect ours. |
@filips123 @imachug The voting #2273 can be also closed by now. |
No, you didn't. You only explain what that files would be used for. You didn't explain why do you need that files if data are already on GitHub.
Where is it stated that repository must have that files and that GitHub's data are not enough?
The PR #2296 can be also closed by now. |
|
I claim all rights over my contribution right in this moment so you must reverse all the merges. I will not contribute to any repository which distributes software illegally and not giving credit for my contribution. |
|
So you own the copyright for detecting and handling MIME types? Why then don't you sue Apache or other web servers which use the same way of handling MIME types? Or even better, where is your proof that you didn't steal that code from Apache or another web server? |
|
Yes, I own the copyright! Without me you would not merged that into the software and clearly for years none of you did! |
|
Again, please answer what I asked you. Is this diffreance not enough for you? |
|
I don't need to prove anything! However, every single contributor must immediately stop distributing the ZeroNet software illegally! |
|
Nobody need to stop distributing the ZeroNet software. However, you must prove what I asked you for! |
No credit is given to me for this contribution, figure out other way to fix your problems or keep it how you used it for years. I reserve all right to my contribution.
|
Words don't count as contribution, code does! Go RTFM. |
|
I don't care what you count or not! It is my contribution! Without me this changes never even would be made! So reversing the file! Find other ways to fix your issues! Not using my pull requests without giving me credit! I going to sue if in any way the file is similar to to my pull request! |
Oh yes. So you own the copyright for handling MIME types according to RFC and IANA? |
|
The point is you did not fixed this for more than 4 years, when I come and sent a pull request my contribution is discredited and merged in someone elses name! I will not going to allow this! You had many years to fix this issue and you did not so don't you come here now and cry to me about that I removing my contribution! This pull request is archived: |
|
Telling people about problems is not a contribution from legal side. |
|
I did sent code! Lastly ZeroNet is the one which violates other people copyrights and licenses also for years! Don't you even try to discredit my pull request! I going to sue the hell out of this repository and its owners if the licensing issue is not resolved urgently! Remove my contribution from ZeroNet and don't you even try to implement similar code what is sent in the pull request! Not enough that ZeroNet violated more than 3 licenses and copyright of many other people for years? Now you try to stole my contribution too? I sue ZeroNet maintainers for both the license and the discredit of my contribution if this is the case! |
|
Yes, we see that GitHub legal stuff is on your side as they removed at least 10 of your accounts. Of course totally not because of violating their ToS. |
|
They removed all those accounts because you and other criminals reported them in order to try to cover up the fact that you are a worthless license abuser and criminal copyright infringer. I don't give a damn about GitHub, this Microsoft trash. |
|
They don't remove accounts that don't violate ToS. They remove accounts that violate ToS. |
|
They remove everything! Even if just one person report anything he don't like, Microsoft will jump on it and ban the reported account without any question or notification! |
|
Don't you feel shameful that ZeroNet which claims to be "censorship-resistant" reporting accounts, banning accounts, hiding and discrediting pull request, violating licenses and copyrights of many people? How is that? Tell me because I fail to understand! |
|
@CyberSecurityEngineer Sure! Feel free to report me if you want to. |
|
We are not shameful for reporting users who are attacking us as a project and personally instead of making a discussion. |
|
Attacking us as a project? 🤣 You are a joke! Microsoft sucker! Is this your answer to a very embarrassing question? |
|
That's the best answer I could find for you, given that you didn't react to my "words are not contributions" phrase. Please elaborate on your views. |
|
Yes. Microsoft sucker that made decentralized GitHub and GitLab alternative. |
|
Pretending to be the victim? 🤣 What a fucking joke are you? You are nothing more than a bunch of criminals who still in this moment violates many licenses and copyright other many people including me! Shame on you, retarded maniac! |
|
I am working on MIT-licensed library alternatives right now. And what have you done to fix license problems? |
|
I do like @imachug! He is great! I seen the |
|
ZeroNet does not support a better solution now. KxoID hasn't existed back then. |
|
@imachug Can you add KxoID? Look, the first step into making new version :) |
|
I'd like to but I'm afraid I don't have some of Git Center keys anymore. I'll try to find them soon though. |
I sent now the second pull request with the correct license and I was who informed this project about the problems regarding the licenses.
I think don't even need anything like this. Simply generate a key and give that to the user to save it, if they loosing the key, they loosing the repository. That simple. The key should be something like this: 255 random ASCII printable characters |
|
That's not simple. First, that's not supported by ZeroNet. Second, that doesn't solve spam problems. |
|
A spammer will not contribute anything to a repository, so you can say that newly created repositories in X time should have X commit or will be deleted automatically. Spam solved. |
|
That's even more centralization, lol. |
Automatization is not centralization. |
|
Ok, so thinking more about it: spammers can easily abuse this by making a single commit every day. |
ghost
closed this
ghost
reopened this
|
@imachug mentioned here: #2241 (comment)
|
|
I going to look into this, yesterday tested the MIME type |
ghost
mentioned this pull request
@imachug @filips123 please see this. This is how ZeroNet complies with licenses! I created some additional files also because they are required.