It doesn’t matter what the license say, because GitHub TOS (that everybody agree on when registering their account) explicitly allows forking any project hosted on GitHub, regardless of the project’s license.
Copyright is always about distribution. So yes, you are allowed to fork, but you are not allowed to distribute the copyrighted content to other people. And with the No Derivatives clause you are also not allowed to change it.
You might be able to stay in the gray are by telling everyone “build it yourself”, but nobody would be allowed to package it either.
To write a script that checks out upstream code and compiles it locally is not a distribution by a 3rd party. The code comes directly from Stenzek. That’s why he puts the Arch check there.
If that script happens to do a search and replace of archlinux with some random jibberish (so the check is no longer for archlinux), that’s still not a distribution of modified code because all code modifications happen locally.
It doesn’t matter what the license say, because GitHub TOS (that everybody agree on when registering their account) explicitly allows forking any project hosted on GitHub, regardless of the project’s license.
Copyright is always about distribution. So yes, you are allowed to fork, but you are not allowed to distribute the copyrighted content to other people. And with the No Derivatives clause you are also not allowed to change it. You might be able to stay in the gray are by telling everyone “build it yourself”, but nobody would be allowed to package it either.
To write a script that checks out upstream code and compiles it locally is not a distribution by a 3rd party. The code comes directly from Stenzek. That’s why he puts the Arch check there.
If that script happens to do a search and replace of archlinux with some random jibberish (so the check is no longer for archlinux), that’s still not a distribution of modified code because all code modifications happen locally.