PetalsOnaWet/lizhi: a README that indexes Li Zhi's live recordings, not a downloader

What the lizhi repository actually is

This is not a program. The top-level entries are README.md, doge.jpeg, lizhi.jpeg, trc.jpeg and zanshang.jpg. There is no source directory, no package manifest, no build file and no licence file, so the repository has no declared license. The README describes itself as "互联网上整合的李志的歌曲资源,应该是比较全的版本", an aggregation of Li Zhi resources collected from the internet that the author believes is a fairly complete version. The work it does is editorial: someone gathered recordings, sorted them into folders, and wrote down what each folder contains. The audience is a listener who already knows Li Zhi's catalogue and wants a map of what circulates, including live bootlegs that were never officially released. If you arrived expecting a command to run, there is none. The two things the README points to are a Google Drive folder and a Quark netdisk share.

The two download addresses the README gives

Distribution happens entirely through third-party cloud storage, and the README lists two destinations. The first is a Google Drive folder with the URL https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Qrub6z-COxiwRVz3gP6JcTIYQpBEU6dj?usp=drive_link, described as the Google Drive resource. The second is a Quark netdisk share at https://pan.quark.cn/s/078eafd744b3, described as the Quark netdisk resource. Nothing in the repository mirrors the audio itself, so availability depends on those two hosts and on the sharing account behind them. That is the main structural weakness: a Git repository is a poor place to publish a catalogue whose payload lives somewhere else and can disappear without any commit. The README also mentions that the author has collected other netdisk resources covering American series, short dramas, films, TV shows, novels, books, cracked software, exam preparation material and animation, which tells you the maintainer treats this as one folder in a broader personal collection rather than a dedicated music project.

How the catalogue is organised, and why the layout drifts

The README's body is a nested list of folder names and the filenames inside them. Top-level groupings include 李志 - 勾三搭四, 李志 - 限量未发售非官方, 李志 - 专辑系列, 李志 - 洋自剪与 09 我爱南京. Under 专辑系列 sit concert sets such as 李志 - 工体东路没有人 2009 Live, 李志 - 北京不插电现场, Imagine 2011 Live, 李志 - 108 个关键词 2012 Live, 李志 - 动静 2015 Live, [IO2014], 李志[1701], 李志 - 电声与管弦乐 and 李志、电声与管弦乐 II. The naming is inconsistent by design and by accident. Some entries use a dash separator, some use a slash, one uses square brackets, and the same album name appears more than once with different track counts: 李志 - 勾三搭四 is listed twice, once with twenty FLAC tracks and once with ten. Formats are mixed across MP3, FLAC, M4A and WAV. The author acknowledges this directly, writing that there may be duplicate resources, missing resources and confused hierarchy, and asking for understanding. There is also a rule worth noting: resources not mentioned in the directory do not exist in the collection. That sentence is the closest thing to an API contract the project has.

Getting to a first playable file

There is no install step because there is no software. What you do instead is clone or download the repository for the README, then follow the links it contains. This fetches the catalogue text, which is the only thing version-controlled here.

Where this breaks down

The first limitation is stated by the author: duplicates, gaps and a confused hierarchy. A listener looking for one canonical version of a song will find the same title in several folders with different suffixes, such as 李志 - 鼠说 (相信未来版).flac, 李志 - 鼠说 (2016 不插电).flac and 李志 - 鼠说（1701 专辑）.mp3. Nothing in the README says which is authoritative, so the choice is yours. The second limitation is that the repository is a pointer, not a store. If the Google Drive folder or the Quark share is taken down, the README still describes files that no longer exist, and no commit will record the loss. The third is the copyright position. The README says all rights belong to Li Zhi, that the author only collected and merged resources from the internet, and that Li Zhi and his team can contact the author for removal at any time. That is an honest statement, and it also means the collection has no legal basis you can rely on for redistribution. If you need a licensed copy, this is the wrong tool entirely, and so is any other fan index.

What a music-library tool would do differently

The natural comparison is a self-hosted music server such as Navidrome or a tagger such as beets. Those are programs: they scan a directory you own, read tags, and serve or reorganise the files. This repository does the opposite. It holds no files, reads no tags, and offers no query interface beyond scrolling a Markdown list. The difference matters in practice. With a library tool, the hard part is acquiring and tagging files, and the tool handles deduplication and search afterwards. Here, acquisition is the entire product, and deduplication is left to you because the catalogue itself contains duplicates. A second comparison is a streaming service, which solves legality and availability but not the bootleg material: the 限量未发售非官方 section and the audience recordings from 20140417 郑州 and 20150808 杭州 are exactly the kind of material that does not appear on licensed platforms. So the repository's only real advantage is coverage of unofficial live recordings, and its cost is that you manage formats, duplicates and legal risk yourself.

Maintenance, licence and upgrade cost

There are no releases, and the repository has no license file, so no license terms are granted by the project itself; the README's copyright paragraph concerns the recordings, not the text. The last push was on 2026-04-17, which is more than five months before today's date of 2026-09-24. Nothing in the repository indicates ongoing work, so treat the catalogue as a snapshot rather than a feed. Upgrade cost is low in the technical sense, because there is nothing to upgrade: pulling the latest README is the whole update path. The real cost is verification. Each time you use it you are re-checking whether the Drive folder and the Quark share still resolve, whether a folder still contains the track count the README claims, and whether a file you downloaded is the same recording as one you already have under a different suffix. Budget for that, not for a version bump.

Editorial conclusion

Adopt this if you want a starting index of Li Zhi live recordings and you are willing to convert formats and de-duplicate files yourself; skip it if you need a maintained, licensed archive or an automated downloader, because the repository is a README plus four image files and nothing else. Before relying on it, open the Google Drive folder and the Quark link to confirm the files are still reachable, and read the README's own copyright paragraph, which states that all rights belong to Li Zhi and that he or his team can request removal at any time.

Frequently asked questions

Official sources

1. Issues
2. PetalsOnaWet/lizhi on GitHub
3. Project website
4. README