5 ms·

Removing everything from GitHub

142 points by 0x0 10y ago

slig 10y ago
More discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933
_Marak_ 10y ago
Can someone please explain what is going on here? I have an AGPL project on Github with close to 1,000 stars, multiple contributors, and a CLA. Is my project affected by this? Does this change somehow endanger the copyleft clause of our AGPL license?
- lolc 10y ago
  The way I understood it: While you may licence your work to Github according to their terms, you can't licence other people's work to Github under a different licence than how it was licenced to you. The language of copyleft licences is very strict in this regard. Github certainly didn't mean their terms to be read this way. They included "as required for the service" in all relevant places. What I don't understand is why they want the uploader to grant them a specific licence, instead of a more lenient "the content you upload must be licenced in a way that allows us to ..." Edit: I think that nobody except possibly Github the company could take advantage of this "additional" licences. The biggest risk I see is that an AGPL contributor sees their licence violated when you upload their contribution to Github. So you're in a legal gray area if you still do it. Not something you want to be in but not going to be a problem in most cases. It looks like Github tried to protect themselves from some pathologic cases and have created headaches for everybody else. The way I see it they're trying to push some risks on their users.
- jwilk 10y ago
  A severe overreaction is going on.
optimuspaul 10y ago
I'm confused. I read that TOS and I don't see anything that does anything like this post describes. I think this may be FUD.
ajarmst 10y ago
Reserving judgement until I see an analysis from someone familiar with the pertinent law, and qualified to comment (i.e. "What does Eben Moglen think?"). The "analysis" linked to is a dead link (maybe it got HNed).
- loeg 10y ago
  http://web.archive.org/web/20170301173905/https://www.mirbsd.org/permalinks/wlog-10_e20170301-tg.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20170301173905/https://www.mirbsd...
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  At least one self-proclaimed lawyer weighed in here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768188 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768188
hoodoof 10y ago
Overreaction. Of course Github doesn't want this sort of thing. Just be patient.
brian-armstrong 10y ago
This raises an interesting point. Suppose you really can be 'tainted' by viewing GPL or other copyleft code. Should the search function require you to opt in to showing snippets from copylefted codebases (or codebases without any licenses)? It seems like anything less is asking for trouble.
- TAForObvReasons 10y ago
  You can attack open source projects by posting a project with a draconian license, duplicate existing code from an open source project and use git features to backdate the commit, then go after authors who "copied" the features.
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    And should you lose, face a criminal counter suit. (False testimony and potentially forgery. Depending on the licence, also breach thereof in a civil suit.) Trading a civil suit for criminal one is a Bad Idea. You generally will have to produce evidence of incremental development at least, if not more. Not A Lawyer.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
libertymcateer 10y ago
Software lawyer here. Is this the offending language? >If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to access your Content through the GitHub Service, and to use, display and perform your Content, and to reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality. You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. Is the theory here that this negates FOSS licenses, over-riding copyleft terms with permissive terms? Based on my reading, it comes down to whether your read the "use, display and perform" as conjunct or disjoint with "solely on Github." If it is conjunct, it should not be a problem. If it is disjoint... yeah, that may be a problem. To be explicitly clear, I am a software lawyer and I write a whole hell of a lot of licenses that have to play well with FOSS licenses. I do this for a living. I am going to have to think this over pretty hard. Edit: I just tweeted at them: https://twitter.com/LibertyMcateer/status/837048904583626752 https://twitter.com/LibertyMcateer/status/837048904583626752 I'll post more if I hear anything. Edit edit: read this response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933 I am persuaded. The pertinent language, for "use, display and perform" is pretty limited. Typically, copyleft licenses are hinged on the distribution of code - which is basically the same thing as reproduction in the digital world. A general license to use, display and perform code may play well with copyleft licenses as a result. Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer. I am not github's lawyer. These statements are my own, not my firm's and I have not performed a full analysis of this language or GitHub's license. If you need a legal opinion, you should retain a lawyer.
- coleifer 10y ago
  My reading was that it was conjunct with the other clauses, it would be very sneaky if it weren't.
  - libertymcateer 10y ago
    Edit: to conform with the above, I'm now of the opinion this is less of a big deal that everyone is making it out to be. I can always be persuaded, however, by strong argumentation. Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer. I am not github's lawyer. These statements are my own, not my firms and I have not performed a full analysis of this language or GitHub's license. If you need a legal opinion, you should retain a lawyer.
dosgonlogs 10y ago
If they are indeed overreacting it still gives me comfort how quickly people respond with potential "fixes" to issues even if they are not an issue in the end.

142 points by 0x0 10y ago

slig 10y ago

More discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933

Can someone please explain what is going on here? I have an AGPL project on Github with close to 1,000 stars, multiple contributors, and a CLA. Is my project affected by this? Does this change somehow endanger the copyleft clause of our AGPL license?

lolc 10y ago
The way I understood it: While you may licence your work to Github according to their terms, you can't licence other people's work to Github under a different licence than how it was licenced to you. The language of copyleft licences is very strict in this regard. Github certainly didn't mean their terms to be read this way. They included "as required for the service" in all relevant places. What I don't understand is why they want the uploader to grant them a specific licence, instead of a more lenient "the content you upload must be licenced in a way that allows us to ..." Edit: I think that nobody except possibly Github the company could take advantage of this "additional" licences. The biggest risk I see is that an AGPL contributor sees their licence violated when you upload their contribution to Github. So you're in a legal gray area if you still do it. Not something you want to be in but not going to be a problem in most cases. It looks like Github tried to protect themselves from some pathologic cases and have created headaches for everybody else. The way I see it they're trying to push some risks on their users.
jwilk 10y ago
A severe overreaction is going on.

optimuspaul 10y ago

I'm confused. I read that TOS and I don't see anything that does anything like this post describes. I think this may be FUD.

ajarmst 10y ago

Reserving judgement until I see an analysis from someone familiar with the pertinent law, and qualified to comment (i.e. "What does Eben Moglen think?"). The "analysis" linked to is a dead link (maybe it got HNed).

loeg 10y ago
http://web.archive.org/web/20170301173905/https://www.mirbsd.org/permalinks/wlog-10_e20170301-tg.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20170301173905/https://www.mirbsd...
Mithaldu 10y ago
At least one self-proclaimed lawyer weighed in here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768188 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768188

hoodoof 10y ago

Overreaction. Of course Github doesn't want this sort of thing. Just be patient.

brian-armstrong 10y ago

This raises an interesting point. Suppose you really can be 'tainted' by viewing GPL or other copyleft code. Should the search function require you to opt in to showing snippets from copylefted codebases (or codebases without any licenses)? It seems like anything less is asking for trouble.

TAForObvReasons 10y ago
You can attack open source projects by posting a project with a draconian license, duplicate existing code from an open source project and use git features to backdate the commit, then go after authors who "copied" the features.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  And should you lose, face a criminal counter suit. (False testimony and potentially forgery. Depending on the licence, also breach thereof in a civil suit.) Trading a civil suit for criminal one is a Bad Idea. You generally will have to produce evidence of incremental development at least, if not more. Not A Lawyer.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

libertymcateer 10y ago

Software lawyer here. Is this the offending language? >If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to access your Content through the GitHub Service, and to use, display and perform your Content, and to reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality. You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. Is the theory here that this negates FOSS licenses, over-riding copyleft terms with permissive terms? Based on my reading, it comes down to whether your read the "use, display and perform" as conjunct or disjoint with "solely on Github." If it is conjunct, it should not be a problem. If it is disjoint... yeah, that may be a problem. To be explicitly clear, I am a software lawyer and I write a whole hell of a lot of licenses that have to play well with FOSS licenses. I do this for a living. I am going to have to think this over pretty hard. Edit: I just tweeted at them: https://twitter.com/LibertyMcateer/status/837048904583626752 https://twitter.com/LibertyMcateer/status/837048904583626752 I'll post more if I hear anything. Edit edit: read this response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933 I am persuaded. The pertinent language, for "use, display and perform" is pretty limited. Typically, copyleft licenses are hinged on the distribution of code - which is basically the same thing as reproduction in the digital world. A general license to use, display and perform code may play well with copyleft licenses as a result. Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer. I am not github's lawyer. These statements are my own, not my firm's and I have not performed a full analysis of this language or GitHub's license. If you need a legal opinion, you should retain a lawyer.

coleifer 10y ago
My reading was that it was conjunct with the other clauses, it would be very sneaky if it weren't.
- libertymcateer 10y ago
  Edit: to conform with the above, I'm now of the opinion this is less of a big deal that everyone is making it out to be. I can always be persuaded, however, by strong argumentation. Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer. I am not github's lawyer. These statements are my own, not my firms and I have not performed a full analysis of this language or GitHub's license. If you need a legal opinion, you should retain a lawyer.

dosgonlogs 10y ago

If they are indeed overreacting it still gives me comfort how quickly people respond with potential "fixes" to issues even if they are not an issue in the end.