▲ 563 ▼ Yuzu & Citra devs fold to Nintendo's demands | Pay $2.3million to settle, take down github, domains, patreon, discord, with immediate effect. (m.youtube.com) submitted 2 years ago by merthyr1831@lemmy.world to c/opensource@lemmy.ml 90 comments fedilink hide all child comments A sad day for emulation and open source advocates, and a reminder that Nintendo can and will destroy you if they see fit. Hopefully their works will live in the saved repos just as ReVanced was able to live on after YouTube shut the original project down.
[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 74 points 2 years ago (16 children) So someone forked the GitHub right? permalink fedilink source hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 22 points 2 years ago* (13 children) Since there's now legal precedent, and GitHub already has the signatures of the project code, they will simply now close down any fork that matches the code signatures to avoid getting sued by Nintendo as well. Hopefully someone forked it to a completely different self-hosted GitHub-like instance or the other GitHub alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] cm0002@lemmy.world 92 points 2 years ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Court cases shouldn't be allowed to be settled out of court after a certain point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] cm0002@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago (2 children) The repository removal was voluntary and done by the Yuzu team. GitHub doesn't have to do anything and won't do anything. Even when they receive a DMCA takedown, they only block forks made through GitHub's "fork" button. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] catloaf@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) It wasn't voluntary, it was part of the settlement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Voluntary from the perspective of GitHub. If it was through a DMCA request, all the forks would be gone with it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 19 points 2 years ago* Oh there will be forks across the git-verse. There's no way there wouldn't be. Also does this create precedent? - they settled, its not like it actually went to court. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) It would be possible to create a dummy "salt" commit and rebase every the branch onto it. The content would effectively be the same, but each commit hash would differ. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chebra@mstdn.io -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) @0x0 Why do you think they only check the commit hash? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago I don't? You can apply a similar technique to bust file hashes. Add a new comment to each source file, or whatever. My point is that automated methods to detect unwanted content will only get GitHub so far. It will have to be fuzzy, and that means it's an arms race between detectors and obfuscators. permalink fedilink source parent [–] arc@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago It would be better to "git clone" a repo under threat of removal than fork it in Github. That way an entire copy of its history is preserved. It's possible the forks still exist for now, even if Yuzu removes their official repo, but if Nintendo serves Github the legal paperwork then the forks will get blasted. That said if someone clones the repo, they probably ought to think twice before putting it back in the cloud without sanitizing / reconstructing the branches & history absent of the bits that got Yuzu into trouble in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent [–] InfiniteStruggle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago how are the signatures build? do they just use a sha hash for checking file identity? permalink fedilink source parent [–] LazaroFilm@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) RIGHT‽ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago INTERROBANG permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 22 points 2 years ago* (13 children) Since there's now legal precedent, and GitHub already has the signatures of the project code, they will simply now close down any fork that matches the code signatures to avoid getting sued by Nintendo as well. Hopefully someone forked it to a completely different self-hosted GitHub-like instance or the other GitHub alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] cm0002@lemmy.world 92 points 2 years ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Court cases shouldn't be allowed to be settled out of court after a certain point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] cm0002@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago (2 children) The repository removal was voluntary and done by the Yuzu team. GitHub doesn't have to do anything and won't do anything. Even when they receive a DMCA takedown, they only block forks made through GitHub's "fork" button. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] catloaf@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) It wasn't voluntary, it was part of the settlement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Voluntary from the perspective of GitHub. If it was through a DMCA request, all the forks would be gone with it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 19 points 2 years ago* Oh there will be forks across the git-verse. There's no way there wouldn't be. Also does this create precedent? - they settled, its not like it actually went to court. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) It would be possible to create a dummy "salt" commit and rebase every the branch onto it. The content would effectively be the same, but each commit hash would differ. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chebra@mstdn.io -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) @0x0 Why do you think they only check the commit hash? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago I don't? You can apply a similar technique to bust file hashes. Add a new comment to each source file, or whatever. My point is that automated methods to detect unwanted content will only get GitHub so far. It will have to be fuzzy, and that means it's an arms race between detectors and obfuscators. permalink fedilink source parent [–] arc@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago It would be better to "git clone" a repo under threat of removal than fork it in Github. That way an entire copy of its history is preserved. It's possible the forks still exist for now, even if Yuzu removes their official repo, but if Nintendo serves Github the legal paperwork then the forks will get blasted. That said if someone clones the repo, they probably ought to think twice before putting it back in the cloud without sanitizing / reconstructing the branches & history absent of the bits that got Yuzu into trouble in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent [–] InfiniteStruggle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago how are the signatures build? do they just use a sha hash for checking file identity? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] cm0002@lemmy.world 92 points 2 years ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Court cases shouldn't be allowed to be settled out of court after a certain point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] cm0002@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Court cases shouldn't be allowed to be settled out of court after a certain point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] cm0002@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago (2 children) The repository removal was voluntary and done by the Yuzu team. GitHub doesn't have to do anything and won't do anything. Even when they receive a DMCA takedown, they only block forks made through GitHub's "fork" button. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] catloaf@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) It wasn't voluntary, it was part of the settlement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Voluntary from the perspective of GitHub. If it was through a DMCA request, all the forks would be gone with it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] catloaf@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) It wasn't voluntary, it was part of the settlement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Voluntary from the perspective of GitHub. If it was through a DMCA request, all the forks would be gone with it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Voluntary from the perspective of GitHub. If it was through a DMCA request, all the forks would be gone with it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 19 points 2 years ago* Oh there will be forks across the git-verse. There's no way there wouldn't be. Also does this create precedent? - they settled, its not like it actually went to court. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) It would be possible to create a dummy "salt" commit and rebase every the branch onto it. The content would effectively be the same, but each commit hash would differ. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chebra@mstdn.io -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) @0x0 Why do you think they only check the commit hash? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago I don't? You can apply a similar technique to bust file hashes. Add a new comment to each source file, or whatever. My point is that automated methods to detect unwanted content will only get GitHub so far. It will have to be fuzzy, and that means it's an arms race between detectors and obfuscators. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chebra@mstdn.io -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) @0x0 Why do you think they only check the commit hash? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago I don't? You can apply a similar technique to bust file hashes. Add a new comment to each source file, or whatever. My point is that automated methods to detect unwanted content will only get GitHub so far. It will have to be fuzzy, and that means it's an arms race between detectors and obfuscators. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago I don't? You can apply a similar technique to bust file hashes. Add a new comment to each source file, or whatever. My point is that automated methods to detect unwanted content will only get GitHub so far. It will have to be fuzzy, and that means it's an arms race between detectors and obfuscators. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] arc@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago It would be better to "git clone" a repo under threat of removal than fork it in Github. That way an entire copy of its history is preserved. It's possible the forks still exist for now, even if Yuzu removes their official repo, but if Nintendo serves Github the legal paperwork then the forks will get blasted. That said if someone clones the repo, they probably ought to think twice before putting it back in the cloud without sanitizing / reconstructing the branches & history absent of the bits that got Yuzu into trouble in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] InfiniteStruggle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago how are the signatures build? do they just use a sha hash for checking file identity? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LazaroFilm@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) RIGHT‽ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago INTERROBANG permalink fedilink source parent