this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
844 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

59605 readers
3366 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

GitCode, a git-hosting website operated Chongqing Open-Source Co-Creation Technology Co Ltd and with technical support from CSDN and Huawei Cloud.

It is being reported that many users' repository are being cloned and re-hosted on GitCode without explicit authorization.

There is also a thread on Ycombinator (archived link)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HKayn@dormi.zone 29 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I'm noticing this misconception in a lot of places.

Just because something is on GitHub, doesn't mean it's open source.

[–] maxinstuff@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I get what your saying, in that open source projects normally have a licence that applies to how it’s used - but this has always been open to abuse.

Nothing has ever stopped things like this happening - see how industry has taken advantage of open source for decades (often productising things as their own in the process).

[–] HKayn@dormi.zone 9 points 5 months ago

The industry takes advantage of open source projects that have permissive licenses. This is an important distinction.

If you didn't release your code with a permissive license (or even with a license at all), you have rights that protect you and your code. The only issue is that copyright infringement can often be hard to prove if you didn't plan ahead for it.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Obviously it functionally very much is. If you wanted to keep it closed source you'd host it on your own servers or even keep it offline.

[–] HKayn@dormi.zone 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

No, this is not correct at all! You keep limiting yourself to the terms "open source" and "closed source".

Any code you create, you own by copyright. Even if it is public on GitHub, you're still the lone copyright owner and no one is legally allowed to do with it what isn't allowed by a license.

Projects on GitHub without an open source license are only "functionally open source" to the same extent that pirated games are "functionally free".

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

If you want to use piracy language then this is privateering. It would be piracy except for the fact that they've got the backing and protection of a major country.

[–] hark@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago

Copyright is an arbitrary concept. If a country decides to ignore it, then they can do what they want with a publicly-visible resource.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Don't forget that "open source" has a different definition than "source available".

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh I get the theoretical difference. I'm talking about functional difference. Good luck taking China to patent court.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Open source doesn't mean source available. You simply aren't using the term correctly.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, I'm pointing out that China doesn't care about your dictionary.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If someone infringes on a copyright that doesn't mean the work isn't copyrighted. You can't just say things that are source available are open source. Even if someone is infringing on the rights holders they're still only source available.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In countries following that legal regime.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're being obtuse. I get the point you're trying to make -- you've been heard. I'm just saying those aren't the terms you should be using to make it. Open source has a very distinct definition and it has to do with the licenses covering the code. It has nothing to do with whether different countries have differing laws. Code cannot be open source in one country and not open source in another because the definition has nothing to do with countries. In fact, that would specifically not be open source because it gives rights to some and not others.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The problem is we aren't in a thread talking about Apple stealing code. We're in a thread about China doing it. And people in here are like, "that's illegal! It's not actually open source!"

Which is why I'm driving this point so hard.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Just because it might be legal to violate copyrights in other countries doesn't make the code considered open source though lol.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It does where they're concerned.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -5 points 5 months ago

If it's on the internet, I save, I pirate, I protect. Don't like it ? Then get off MY internet !