3 ms·

They could have avoided the bulk of these problems by the following: 5. License Grant to Other Users If your project doesn't have a license attached, then the

by kefka 10y ago

They could have avoided the bulk of these problems by the following: 5. License Grant to Other Users If your project doesn't have a license attached, then the rights you provide GitHub and users are as follows: You agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of your Content in repositories they control). 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. Choosing a License for the repo supersedes the above rights declaration and reverts completely to the License of your choice. ___________________________________________ There's cases where I'm using someone else's GPL3 code. Im using it because of the GPL and am granted rights. I can't comply with the "rights" GH wants because I don't have them to give. I also have projects that I'd like to share as GPL, but not as BSD or MIT. My choice. The existing version grants GH an effective BSD license for everything on there.

ProblemFactory 10y ago
They would have avoided most of the complaints, but I'm sure their lawyers would never have approved such ToS. It would mean that github is responsible for analyzing each license and what features they can provide for code under each license, and take the risk of potentially defending their understanding of each license in court if other people disagree. It would also mean that if someone illegally changes the license file on someone else's project and then uploads it to github, then github is at risk instead of the uploader. A better solution would be to describe the features they provide for public repos in detail, and require uploaders to pledge that the license is sufficient to grant these rights, or that they grant the rights themselves.

by kefka 10y ago

ProblemFactory 10y ago

They would have avoided most of the complaints, but I'm sure their lawyers would never have approved such ToS. It would mean that github is responsible for analyzing each license and what features they can provide for code under each license, and take the risk of potentially defending their understanding of each license in court if other people disagree. It would also mean that if someone illegally changes the license file on someone else's project and then uploads it to github, then github is at risk instead of the uploader. A better solution would be to describe the features they provide for public repos in detail, and require uploaders to pledge that the license is sufficient to grant these rights, or that they grant the rights themselves.