• @Wimopy@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    17327 days 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
      86
      edit-2
      27 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        8727 days 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
          3926 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            4526 days 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.

              • @MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                2326 days ago

                I’m pretty sure it means exactly what it says, but you lot are all misreading it.

                I interpret it as “all rights, except the right to commit, are reserved” (which doesn’t mean you surrender the right to commit, but rather that it’s the only right you aren’t depriving everyone else of)

                • @dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1226 days ago

                  And I’m pretty sure that the name “hot potato license” and the comment above the license are very strong indicators for this not being the case. The license is meant to mimic a game of hot potato where you get the code for a short moment (one commit) and have to throw it to someone else. Sure, the analogy doesn’t quite work because you can’t decide who has to make the next commit but it would make even less sense if you were able to keep control over the code and add more and more commits. That would defeat the whole point of naming it “hot potato license”.

            • @mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              426 days ago

              Thats why I said it needs to be more rigorous. The license probably meant Everyone in the earth except the last person who commited to it

        • @mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -226 days 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

      • zewm
        link
        fedilink
        English
        026 days ago

        The fact that you have 38 upvotes with such an incorrect statement is mind boggling.

        This is how politics works I supposed. Write something that sounds plausible but is completely incorrect, inaccurate or completely fabricated and stupid people applaud and follow.

        • @unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          26 days ago

          Its ok to be unable to read, but dont make that other peoples problem.

          https://github.com/ErikMcClure/bad-licenses/blob/master/hot-potato-license

          This is copied from V2 but same thing:

          All rights reserved by the last person to commit a change to this repository,

          No explanation needed

          except for the right to commit changes to this repository,

          Also no explanation needed

          which is hereby granted to all inhabitants of the Milky Way Galaxy for the purpose of committing changes to this repository.

          This refers to the previous section meaning everyone can make commits to the repository except for the person excluded by that same section

          • @brisk@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            426 days ago

            A right not being reserved does not mean it is waived, only that it is not exclusive. The last person to commit still has the right to commit, as does everyone else.

    • @Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      3026 days 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.

    • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      1126 days ago

      Yeah, the problem with the proposition is that you have all rights and access to the code regardless of who made the last commit, unless the last person to commit revoked the HPL.

      • @MNByChoice@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        326 days ago

        The last person cannot revoke the right to make commits.

        I have no idea what that implies about the right to change the license.

  • @Artyom@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    10326 days 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.

  • @mumblerfish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    5626 days ago

    This is how I handle code at work, almost. Program not working? Who has the last commit on the code? You get the question!

  • @raldone01@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    3926 days 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
      2526 days 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.

  • RiQuY
    link
    fedilink
    2926 days ago

    The secret license everyone gets while working for an enterprise. If the previous dude left, good luck changing anything.

  • @uservoid1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2327 days ago

    What happen when the repository is getting forked? Goofing with the license is all haha fun till nasty lawyers get into the picture and you get all sort of liability claims

  • @souperk@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    1526 days ago

    So that’s the legal equivalent of the guy committing 10k changes the day before leaving the company…