SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
GitHub, the git repository hosting service, recently disabled access to the repository of the video converter "WebM for Retards".
This tool, allowing a user to easily convert portions of a video to the increasingly supported WebM format, is mostly used on image-boards and image sharing websites. Despite its name, the project is a fully working tool.
Even the forks hosted on GitHub have been affected by this ban.
At the time of writing, the GitHub staff hasn't offered any form of explanation as to why access to the repo has been limited. However it is not hard to imagine that this may have to do with the name of the project. The recent news regarding DICCS come to mind.
takyon: From GitHub's Terms of Service:
We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and Accounts containing Content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party's intellectual property or these Terms of Service.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @07:07PM
This is the problem with relying on humorless, faceless fools for hosting, like the retarded GitHub admins who removed it. Host it yourself. That's a good idea even if it wasn't removed for the name.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday July 25 2015, @10:35PM
Those cocksucking kike nigger-faggots. They will censor a legitimate project with a quirky but non-obscene name, but they will illegally keep stolen proprietary source code up? [github.com]
What's wrong with those fucking wop zipperhead knuckle-dragging ching-chongs?
(Score: 2) by timbim on Sunday July 26 2015, @01:39AM
Loooooooooollhoolyshit!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Pino P on Sunday July 26 2015, @08:58PM
GitHub acts on notices of claimed infringement that meet the requirements set forth in OCILLA (17 USC 512), such as a notice that a particular repository contains "stolen proprietary source code". These requirements include having been sent by someone acting on the express behalf of the owner of copyright in the allegedly infringed work. This is because copyright law does not require licensees to disclose having taken an unattributed (or "white-label") nonexclusive license from the copyright owner. Because GitHub has no way to know whether or not such a license is in effect, GitHub has no way to evaluate the merit of such a notice from a third party.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @01:29AM
Although many of us might use github for our projects, we aren't the people paying for it. GitHub offer a commercial service and that has to be their primary interest - it pays the money. So, if they discover that the adults who run businesses don't particularly like the way that some individuals behave or use certain words, and this action has the potential to affect their profitability, they would be stupid not to take action to correct it. That doesn't make them 'retarded GitHub admins', but people who realise that to succeed in business, or any other venture for that matter, you have to meet certain societal norms. We have no 'rights' in this matter, they have published the terms and conditions that must be complied with in order to use the service that they provide. That they choose to enforce them should come as no surprise nor is it a reason for any of us to be indignant or offended by it. As you correctly pointed out, individuals can always host their projects themselves.
One should use the appropriate vocabulary for the occasion. If you go to a job interview and start inappropriately using terms such as dude, bro or retard, you shouldn't be surprised if your success rate at finding a job is disappointingly low. If people cannot see or understand this, then maybe they really deserve to be called 'retard'. Perhaps it is a sign of a failing education system. The fact that much of the initial indignation regarding the disabling of these projects originated at 4chan, a community not known for its adult attitude, comes as no great revelation to me whatsoever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @08:20AM
I don't have to read the rest of your shit. The answer is "Don't Use Github" if you thing your code is worth anything.
The End.
I know it's not dramatic but....
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday July 26 2015, @08:00PM
What about: https://github.com/torvalds/linux [github.com]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @12:47PM
One should use the appropriate vocabulary for the occasion.
What is and is not appropriate is completely subjective. What is and is not professional is completely subjective.
If you go to a job interview and start inappropriately using terms such as dude, bro or retard, you shouldn't be surprised if your success rate at finding a job is disappointingly low.
Because society is full of shallow fools.
Perhaps it is a sign of a failing education system.
The mere fact that some people aren't oversensitive, shallow, and realize that many of things we deem 'bad' are in fact subjective matters, is not a sign of bad education; it's a sign of logical thinking.
But my point was that these services are inherently untrustworthy and you shouldn't rely on them. You just help demonstrate why; thanks.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday July 26 2015, @03:33AM
The problem is that Github is such a popular site they should have some responsibility to not run a dictatorship. For example, if Google were to deny service to all IPs coming from Yahoo/Apple, in a sense they have that right as they provide a commercial, private search service, but on the other hand they've grown to a size that rivals public services, they can't just cause public disorder for the hell of it. Shouldn't the same apply to Github as well?
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Sunday July 26 2015, @07:06AM
No - it's a business not a government. If you don't like their T&Cs, go elsewhere. Now whether acting in such a manner would be good for business is another discussion ...
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday July 27 2015, @10:04AM
Last I checked, physical stores, which are also businesses, aren't allowed to kick out people without reason. Water and electric companies, which are also businesses, cannot deny you service without reason. Storage companies, which are also businesses, aren't allowed to damage your property even if you miss a payment.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday July 27 2015, @12:23PM
Who said they haven't got a reason? If the owner/maintainer of the GitHub repository in question has broken the T&Cs, then GitHub have every reason the shut that repo down.
So, here at least, if a tramp/hobo walks into a story, he can expect to be escorted out very quickly. Stores do not have to grant everyone access, and the reason can be nothing more than your appearance. Similarly, if you have broken contracts with previous companies, then utility companies do not have to rush to meet your needs either, they are quite entitled to get assurances that you will not do the same again before they start providing a service to you. But I suppose breaking contracts is the same as breaking T&Cs.
And, as for missing payments, I must have been mistaken when I heard of houses being repossessed a year or two back. Damage is sometimes occasioned during the eviction of householders who have failed to keep up their mortgage payments.