@Lemmchen no, just the sentence in the readme

@MigratingtoLemmy Yup, there are even some similarities from the Twitter/Nitter fight - tracking tokens, IP blocks, API limits, … Get ready for youtube requiring login to watch videos.

@MigratingtoLemmy Yesterday I saw a broken embedded video on LinkedIn so…

@MigratingtoLemmy you are wrong though. They are adding tokens and signatures, without them the videos aren’t playing. But I just updated my invidious and it’s playing fine again => it’s not an IP block (yet), it is a change in the youtube media api, so the players need to be changed too = effectively a player block.

@w00t @sag

This fixed the problem for invidious, maybe RustyTube needs something similar https://github.com/iv-org/inv_sig_helper

deleted by creator

@TwinTusks @w00t

Looks like yesterday Youtube simply stopped serving the format 22 (ytdl -f22, IIRC that was 480p video+audio) on all videos, so now anything that had this format selected as default is failing (@invidious). -f18 is still there (360p).

@sweng Look I don’t have that much time to split hairs about inconsequential things. All I’m saying is that if someone says “Don’t do ABCD” and you click a button on the same page that says “Do ABCD” then that’s clearly the same ABCD they were talking about, no more action necessary, no outside definitions necessary. Have a good day.

@sweng It’s much more likely that the term follows the github’s definition, because it’s on github, rather than the wikipedia’s definition, because why would it? You keep hanging on one word in a wikipedia article, let me fix that article and maybe we can stop this nonsense discussion.

@sweng I simply don’t agree that your “common” definition is really the “common” one. Fork is a fork if you created a copy in another repo. Immediately in that moment, even without a new commit. Clearly that’s what the “Fork” button does. Not zip, that’s not a fork. Nor a private copy, unavailable to anyone else. This fits both the definition from the license, and the TOS, and all instances of “forking” that I’ve seen before.

@sweng And to your question: I’d say no, downloading as zip is not a fork, either by github TOS (because they say the copy must be in a repo) nor by the license, because they specifically define the term “Modify”, and saying that an exact copy is ok, as long as you don’t distribute it or “fork” it - which is exactly why “fork” here means the “Fork” button of github.

Do you think that Download ZIP = fork? It sounds to me like it doesn’t fit the wikipedia definition either, so what’s your point?

@sweng

> Why on earth would the license use Github’s very niche definition?

Maybe because it’s ON GITHUB??

@tux0r You are right that this mistaken definition is quite common. Smart person would try to correct the mistake, not defend it.

@sweng No need, I can instead continue reading the “license” and see the word “or”.

> You may not create, maintain, or distribute

They disallow creating copies. Plus other things, but already creating the fork by either definition is disallowed. Not to mention, wikipedia is not a legal document while the TOS is, the double-quotes are used because that’s the first time a new term is used, followed by its definition, and that the license is likely using Github’s definition, not wikipedia’s

@sweng

Look, I can’t help you if you don’t even read the things you are posting. 🤷‍♂️

@sweng

> take a copy of source code

@sweng But what else would “forking” mean? As you said “in the usual sense”. This is the usual sense - making a copy of the repo on github = forking.

@sweng

> you agree to allow others to view and “fork” your repositories

How did you come to the conclusion that this does not grant the permissions to fork? It’s literally in the sentence. Where else did you find the definition of “forking”, if not here? This is what Github defines in the TOS, this is the label on the button in github UI, so clearly this is also what winamp means when they forbid “forking” and that means it’s against the TOS. There is no other “forking”.

@Dagamant

poor guy Jef, first day on github, immediately fired

@BrikoX @sweng

It’s in the linked issue, spelled out alright:

> By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and “fork” your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).