4 ms·

The site seems to be struggling with load - here are the categories of works the author argues are incompatible with the ToS: - Anything requiring attribution

The site seems to be struggling with load - here are the categories of works the author argues are incompatible with the ToS: - Anything requiring attribution (e.g. CC-BY, but also BSD, …) - Anything putting conditions on the right to “use, display and perform” the work and, worse, “reproduce” (all Copyleft [maybe minus GPL]) - Anything requiring integrity of the author’s source (e.g. LPPL) There's a fair bit more detail on the post, but that's the gist of it. The concerns relate to section D of the new ToS, which is here: https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#d-user-generated-content https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#d-...

cbhl 10y ago
Isn't CC-By (let alone other CC licenses) incompatible with most FOSS licenses anyway?
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  No, CC-by is a permissive license with attribution, compatible with the GPL (and likely other copyleft licenses). CC-by-sa used to be incompatible with most copyleft licenses, but it now provides explicit compatibility with the GPL: https://creativecommons.org/2015/10/08/cc-by-sa-4-0-now-one-way-compatible-with-gplv3/ https://creativecommons.org/2015/10/08/cc-by-sa-4-0-now-one-...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
techman9 10y ago
Forgive my ignorance here, but would this hypothetically include anything licensed under the GPL?
- mirabilos 10y ago
  Yes.
- matthewmacleod 10y ago
  No.
- Filligree 10y ago
  Maybe.
- diegoperini 10y ago
  Sometimes.
spott 10y ago
Much of this seems to be safeguarding Github from legal issues related to their internal handling of the data the repository: reproducing without attribution is necessary for internal search, integrity of source will be violated by search and backups (which might partition the source on the backend), and conditions of "use, display, perform, and reproduce" were already issues before -- essentially depending on users to obey the license rules -- all that changed is that Github is legally requiring your permission to do these things. Honestly, to me, these signify more of a problem with either a) legal interpretation of these licenses or b) the licenses themselves. The things that Github wants to do with your code are perfectly reasonable, and I don't think would be interpreted as "breaking the license". All code is attributed to you when displayed to other users and isn't being broken up in its distribution (unless you believe that only viewing a single file is breaking up the source code... which is just silly) in practice. I really don't view this as a problem. I think fighting any of these issues against Github (without this ToS) in court would likely be very difficult and unfruitful... but the risk makes it necessary for Github to protect themselves anyways.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > Much of this seems to be safeguarding Github from legal issues related to their internal handling of the data the repository: reproducing without attribution is necessary for internal search, integrity of source will be violated by search and backups (which might partition the source on the backend), and conditions of "use, display, perform, and reproduce" were already issues before -- essentially depending on users to obey the license rules -- all that changed is that Github is legally requiring your permission to do these things. It's relatively normal for a site to claim a permissive license for the purpose of implementing site functionality, such as transmitting, displaying, rendering, or backing up the content. It's far rarer for a ToS to claim a permissive license for arbitrary other purposes, let alone grant that license to every other user of the site. The ToS changes here grant such a license to all GitHub users, and not just to use site functionality (e.g. hitting the "fork" button). The few other times I've seen a site attempt to claim such rights over user-submitted content, it has resulted in a backlash just like this.
  - 10y ago
ProblemFactory 10y ago
I don't really see any serious issues with the new terms of service. As they say, when you upload some code to Github (or any other service or website), they are making a copy, and then more copies for backups. If the code is visible to other users, then they are distributing it to other users. If the code is searchable, then they are taking out and distributing little bits of it. Github needs a legal basis to do all these "obvious" things - and so would every hosting service. If LPPL requires the integrity of the author's source code, then it's not just incompatible with Github's ToS, its incompatible with all search engines that show snippets of results. Is there anything that they are asking for in the new ToS that they have not been already doing by running the website, and everyone being okay with when they upload code?

cbhl 10y ago

Isn't CC-By (let alone other CC licenses) incompatible with most FOSS licenses anyway?

JoshTriplett 10y ago
No, CC-by is a permissive license with attribution, compatible with the GPL (and likely other copyleft licenses). CC-by-sa used to be incompatible with most copyleft licenses, but it now provides explicit compatibility with the GPL: https://creativecommons.org/2015/10/08/cc-by-sa-4-0-now-one-way-compatible-with-gplv3/ https://creativecommons.org/2015/10/08/cc-by-sa-4-0-now-one-...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

techman9 10y ago

Forgive my ignorance here, but would this hypothetically include anything licensed under the GPL?

mirabilos 10y ago
Yes.
matthewmacleod 10y ago
No.
Filligree 10y ago
Maybe.
diegoperini 10y ago
Sometimes.

spott 10y ago

Much of this seems to be safeguarding Github from legal issues related to their internal handling of the data the repository: reproducing without attribution is necessary for internal search, integrity of source will be violated by search and backups (which might partition the source on the backend), and conditions of "use, display, perform, and reproduce" were already issues before -- essentially depending on users to obey the license rules -- all that changed is that Github is legally requiring your permission to do these things. Honestly, to me, these signify more of a problem with either a) legal interpretation of these licenses or b) the licenses themselves. The things that Github wants to do with your code are perfectly reasonable, and I don't think would be interpreted as "breaking the license". All code is attributed to you when displayed to other users and isn't being broken up in its distribution (unless you believe that only viewing a single file is breaking up the source code... which is just silly) in practice. I really don't view this as a problem. I think fighting any of these issues against Github (without this ToS) in court would likely be very difficult and unfruitful... but the risk makes it necessary for Github to protect themselves anyways.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
> Much of this seems to be safeguarding Github from legal issues related to their internal handling of the data the repository: reproducing without attribution is necessary for internal search, integrity of source will be violated by search and backups (which might partition the source on the backend), and conditions of "use, display, perform, and reproduce" were already issues before -- essentially depending on users to obey the license rules -- all that changed is that Github is legally requiring your permission to do these things. It's relatively normal for a site to claim a permissive license for the purpose of implementing site functionality, such as transmitting, displaying, rendering, or backing up the content. It's far rarer for a ToS to claim a permissive license for arbitrary other purposes, let alone grant that license to every other user of the site. The ToS changes here grant such a license to all GitHub users, and not just to use site functionality (e.g. hitting the "fork" button). The few other times I've seen a site attempt to claim such rights over user-submitted content, it has resulted in a backlash just like this.
- 10y ago

ProblemFactory 10y ago

I don't really see any serious issues with the new terms of service. As they say, when you upload some code to Github (or any other service or website), they are making a copy, and then more copies for backups. If the code is visible to other users, then they are distributing it to other users. If the code is searchable, then they are taking out and distributing little bits of it. Github needs a legal basis to do all these "obvious" things - and so would every hosting service. If LPPL requires the integrity of the author's source code, then it's not just incompatible with Github's ToS, its incompatible with all search engines that show snippets of results. Is there anything that they are asking for in the new ToS that they have not been already doing by running the website, and everyone being okay with when they upload code?