4 ms·

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 nonexclus

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.
kakwa_ 10y ago
My impression is that the intent is to mitigate the possible legal issues raised by the numerous repositories without license. It seems a little far fetch, but I imagine that accessing and reading content subject to copyrights can be punished legally in some (many?) countries, even if the content is de facto public. (A book published by accident on an open http server is not that different). Also, GitHub having a proeminent "fork" button can be seen as an invitation to violate copyrights, making the service somewhat responsible. However, I'm certainly not a lawyer and I can't determine accurately the implication of this paragraph (intentional or accidental).
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > Also, GitHub having a proeminent "fork" button can be seen as an invitation to violate copyrights, making the service somewhat responsible. What about simply not having a visible 'fork' button for Repository's without a license? IANAL but a supposed automated license grant to Github doesn't sound like very convincing legal rights for use of software (even if the forking itself is legal)? >> Is the theory here that this negates FOSS licenses, over-riding copyleft terms with permissive terms? I was under the impression that Copy-Left licenses weren't "over-ridable" at all. That is the original author of the content could grant Github a parallel license but most e.g. GPLed projects have multiple contributors and any grant to Github in violation of their CLA's wouldn't stand. Could you correct if and where this is incorrect?

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.

kakwa_ 10y ago

My impression is that the intent is to mitigate the possible legal issues raised by the numerous repositories without license. It seems a little far fetch, but I imagine that accessing and reading content subject to copyrights can be punished legally in some (many?) countries, even if the content is de facto public. (A book published by accident on an open http server is not that different). Also, GitHub having a proeminent "fork" button can be seen as an invitation to violate copyrights, making the service somewhat responsible. However, I'm certainly not a lawyer and I can't determine accurately the implication of this paragraph (intentional or accidental).

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> Also, GitHub having a proeminent "fork" button can be seen as an invitation to violate copyrights, making the service somewhat responsible. What about simply not having a visible 'fork' button for Repository's without a license? IANAL but a supposed automated license grant to Github doesn't sound like very convincing legal rights for use of software (even if the forking itself is legal)? >> Is the theory here that this negates FOSS licenses, over-riding copyleft terms with permissive terms? I was under the impression that Copy-Left licenses weren't "over-ridable" at all. That is the original author of the content could grant Github a parallel license but most e.g. GPLed projects have multiple contributors and any grant to Github in violation of their CLA's wouldn't stand. Could you correct if and where this is incorrect?