6 ms·

(edit since I didn't expect many votes, I am not a lawyer at all) The text doesn't seem totally true, for example: > Section D.7 requires the person uploading

(edit since I didn't expect many votes, I am not a lawyer at all) The text doesn't seem totally true, for example: > Section D.7 requires the person uploading content to waive any and all attribution rights. Yet, from the ToS, section D.7: > You retain all moral rights to Content you upload, publish, or submit to any part of the Service, including the rights of integrity and attribution. However, you waive these rights and agree not to assert them against us, to enable us to reasonably exercise the rights granted in Section D.4, but not otherwise. So you don't waive "any and all" rights. From the article: > Section D.5 requires the uploader to grant all other GitHub users… right to “use, display and perform” the work (with no further restrictions attached to it) From the ToS, D.5: > 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. So uh yeah, there are lots of restrictions on it. "solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality", so they can only use Github functionality (i.e. Forking) on your content. They can't sell your content or relicense it or host it on their own website. The only real problem I see here is that unless you created the work entirely by yourself ("you" here can mean a group), you can't grant the rights necessary to upload to Github, even if you're well intentioned or the original authors may be fine with it. And these rules apply to private repos, too. I wish the author had focused more on that.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
The license to "use, display and perform your Content" isn't limited to the GitHub site or functionality. Only the "access your Content" and "reproduce your Content" are limited to GitHub. > The only real problem I see here is that unless you created the work entirely by yourself ("you" here can mean a group), you can't grant the rights necessary to upload to Github, even if you're well intentioned or the original authors may be fine with it. And these rules apply to private repos, too. I wish the author had focused more on that. The author did explicitly mention that. But I think it's worth listing all the issues with the ToS, not just one.
- E6300 10y ago
  > The license to "use, display and perform your Content" isn't limited to the GitHub site Right. If you put up your code publicly you are implicitly allowing other people to do those things, since there's nothing you can do to stop it. How could you stop someone from privately running your code on their hardware? You're also implicitly allow people to fork and download the code, since Github doesn't allow public projects to restrict those abilities. Your particular license may restrict making further copies, though.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    > Right. If you put up your code publicly you are implicitly allowing other people to do those things, As one example, "display" isn't made contingent on attribution. As an unusual but plausible example: a GitHub user could grab a pile of code from across GitHub and render it to construct a "movie hacking UI" for a film, without even an attribution for the code they used. > since there's nothing you can do to stop it. How could you stop someone from privately running your code on their hardware? (Also, "nothing you can do to stop it" is not a grant of permission.)
    - matthewmacleod 10y ago
      As one example, "display" isn't made contingent on attribution. That's fine, but in general these software licenses do not cover "display", they cover _distribution_. If you consider "using code in a movie hacking UI" to be distribution, then you would already have been bound by the license. If you don't, then you're not. Nothing changes.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > That's fine, but in general these software licenses do not cover "display", they cover _distribution_. Yes, that means that "display", insofar as that corresponds to a copyright-protected exclusive right like performance, is not licensed by the license, and (if you aren't the original copyright holder) you have no authority to grant a sublicense to GitHub that covers display.
matt4077 10y ago
> And these rules apply to private repos, too. To quote your quote: >> If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly This is the same non-story that goes around any time someone reads the terms of service of twitter/facebook/dropbox/etc. These services need some license grant to do what you want them to do. Note that any OSS license fulfills the requirements. I always assumed a free license was a requirement anyway. If that's the case, nothing really changed.
- squeaky-clean 10y ago
  Your quote only covers section D.5, other users. You still need to grant Github themselves that right, even for private repos, in section D.4
- mirabilos 10y ago
  Any OSS licence fulfils the requirements EXCEPT for GitHub’s requirement to not add any requirements to the grant. See my updated post.
cannam 10y ago
Section D7 seems to specify that they're talking about moral rights. I understood these to be intrinsic rights in some legal environments, e.g. France, that were distinct from anything that any open source licence might insist on. (As an aside, in the UK there are sadly no moral rights in computer programs, the only one that should apply being expressly excluded in sec 79 of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988)

JoshTriplett 10y ago

The license to "use, display and perform your Content" isn't limited to the GitHub site or functionality. Only the "access your Content" and "reproduce your Content" are limited to GitHub. > The only real problem I see here is that unless you created the work entirely by yourself ("you" here can mean a group), you can't grant the rights necessary to upload to Github, even if you're well intentioned or the original authors may be fine with it. And these rules apply to private repos, too. I wish the author had focused more on that. The author did explicitly mention that. But I think it's worth listing all the issues with the ToS, not just one.

E6300 10y ago
> The license to "use, display and perform your Content" isn't limited to the GitHub site Right. If you put up your code publicly you are implicitly allowing other people to do those things, since there's nothing you can do to stop it. How could you stop someone from privately running your code on their hardware? You're also implicitly allow people to fork and download the code, since Github doesn't allow public projects to restrict those abilities. Your particular license may restrict making further copies, though.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > Right. If you put up your code publicly you are implicitly allowing other people to do those things, As one example, "display" isn't made contingent on attribution. As an unusual but plausible example: a GitHub user could grab a pile of code from across GitHub and render it to construct a "movie hacking UI" for a film, without even an attribution for the code they used. > since there's nothing you can do to stop it. How could you stop someone from privately running your code on their hardware? (Also, "nothing you can do to stop it" is not a grant of permission.)
  - matthewmacleod 10y ago
    As one example, "display" isn't made contingent on attribution. That's fine, but in general these software licenses do not cover "display", they cover _distribution_. If you consider "using code in a movie hacking UI" to be distribution, then you would already have been bound by the license. If you don't, then you're not. Nothing changes.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > That's fine, but in general these software licenses do not cover "display", they cover _distribution_. Yes, that means that "display", insofar as that corresponds to a copyright-protected exclusive right like performance, is not licensed by the license, and (if you aren't the original copyright holder) you have no authority to grant a sublicense to GitHub that covers display.

matt4077 10y ago

> And these rules apply to private repos, too. To quote your quote: >> If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly This is the same non-story that goes around any time someone reads the terms of service of twitter/facebook/dropbox/etc. These services need some license grant to do what you want them to do. Note that any OSS license fulfills the requirements. I always assumed a free license was a requirement anyway. If that's the case, nothing really changed.

squeaky-clean 10y ago
Your quote only covers section D.5, other users. You still need to grant Github themselves that right, even for private repos, in section D.4
mirabilos 10y ago
Any OSS licence fulfils the requirements EXCEPT for GitHub’s requirement to not add any requirements to the grant. See my updated post.

cannam 10y ago

Section D7 seems to specify that they're talking about moral rights. I understood these to be intrinsic rights in some legal environments, e.g. France, that were distinct from anything that any open source licence might insist on. (As an aside, in the UK there are sadly no moral rights in computer programs, the only one that should apply being expressly excluded in sec 79 of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988)