this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
1100 points (99.4% liked)
Programmer Humor
19623 readers
167 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
All rights reserved by......, except the right to commit to this repository.
Being a legal license it requires much more rigorous and clear statement
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.
Yeah, that should read "all other citizens of earth".
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)
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".
No it wouldn't. Whoever touched it last is responsible for it, that's entirely consistent with the metaphore
Are you doxing OOP right now??? How do you know they life on earth?
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
All rights reserved by......, except the right to commit to this repository.
Being a legal license it requires much more rigorous and clear statement
That may be what they meant, but that's not what it says.
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.
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:
No explanation needed
Also no explanation needed
This refers to the previous section meaning everyone can make commits to the repository except for the person excluded by that same section
They should've said "all other inhabitants" to remove the ambiguity.
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.
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.
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.
The last person cannot revoke the right to make commits.
I have no idea what that implies about the right to change the license.