I’m fine with the former, the latter should be “no derivatives that attempt to relicense for commercial use”.
Saying “no forks” is as anti-OSS as you get really, short of hiding all the code under your mattress ala MSFT.
The problem from the article is that the GPL was violated and somewhere downstream the user demanded they fix something to upstream. Being that downstream has modification without being published (my assumption on the GPL violation, either found due to inconsistent bug reproduction or other), the author is understandably upset.
does no derivatives mean i can’t press “fork” in its github page…? lmao that’s pretty anti-foss
Forks are used by developers to not only “fork an application”, but also just to fork the repo, work on their own branches, and push (PR) them back to the main repo. I have forks of many repos, but that doesn’t mean “i have forked the application under a new name”.
If it’s on GitHub you are always allowed to press fork; it’s baked into GitHub ToS.
You may or may not have rights to modify that fork or create any releases or other types of distribution from it.
