3 ms·
Sharing code is pretty central to Github's public repositories, so they're in a different position than, for example, flickr or facebook, where other users are
by matt4077 10y ago
Sharing code is pretty central to Github's public repositories, so they're in a different position than, for example, flickr or facebook, where other users are primarily consumers of your creative works.
That being said, the license grant Github asks for ("use, display, perform, and reproduce") seems to be a minimal set that is part of any OSS license anyway. It doesn't elaborate on any terms of such a license, but from the context it's clear that GPL/BSD/CC/etc. are considered acceptable (see for example the mention of "granting additional rights via license" which links to an overview of these licenses).
- JoshTriplett 10y agoLicenses don't just grant additional rights; they can also set conditions on the exercise of those rights, such as attribution or copyleft. This ToS doesn't acknowledge any of those conditions.
- edmccard 10y ago>Licenses don't just grant additional rights; they can also set conditions on the exercise of those rights, such as attribution or copyleft Usually the right being exercised is that of copying, not merely using; for example, assuming that running a program is a form of use, the GPL does not set conditions on using (or displaying or performing)[1]; are there any copyright licenses that do restrict activities other than distribution? [1]https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#NoDistributionRequirements https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#NoDistributionR...
- kuschku 10y ago> are there any copyright licenses that do restrict activities other than distribution? Quite a few. The JSON license prevents usage in weapons, the old Java license prevents usage in nuclear submarines (until RedHat lobbied to remove that part), etc.
- julian-klode 10y agoThe JSON license does not prevent usage in weapons. Only use for evil. Weapons are not necessarily evil.