4 ms·

> 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 o

by 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.
- E6300 10y ago
  > Also, "nothing you can do to stop it" is not a grant of permission. Okay, well, I give you permission to copy the words in this sentence into your brain, but you're not allowed to process their semantic content into a coherent idea. If you do, I will sue you.
  - Filligree 10y ago
    Surprisingly, the law is neither completely consistent nor interpreted by a computer. Largely to avoid that sort of thing.
systoll 10y ago
If the code were kept secret, or if you could prevent such use with DRM, copyright law would be irrelevant. By having the code in the open, you don't 'implicitly allow' unlicensed uses -- you just become reliant on copyright law as your protection.

by E6300 10y ago

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.
E6300 10y ago
> Also, "nothing you can do to stop it" is not a grant of permission. Okay, well, I give you permission to copy the words in this sentence into your brain, but you're not allowed to process their semantic content into a coherent idea. If you do, I will sue you.
- Filligree 10y ago
  Surprisingly, the law is neither completely consistent nor interpreted by a computer. Largely to avoid that sort of thing.

systoll 10y ago

If the code were kept secret, or if you could prevent such use with DRM, copyright law would be irrelevant. By having the code in the open, you don't 'implicitly allow' unlicensed uses -- you just become reliant on copyright law as your protection.