3 ms·

> But so if they can only access and reproduce your content through Github, what constitutes use/display/perform, and in what ways could they do that? IANAL, n

> But so if they can only access and reproduce your content through Github, what constitutes use/display/perform, and in what ways could they do that? IANAL, nor do I have a dog in this fight, since I prefer contracts to copyrights. However... I think there are at least a few scenarios that require some thinking about, anyway: Given that the TOS forces allowance of use and performance of content uploaded to Github without regard to any license you might have been bound by otherwise, it seems as though it effectively negates any other such restriction. CC BY-NC doesn't allow commercial use, but now they can just point to the implicit license they got with it because you shared it on Github, right? The AGPL requires that modified source used to furnish a direct service must be republished. If usage of Github means that you have granted a license, separately from the AGPL, to every user of Github to use your software, then publishing AGPL software via Github seems to negate the license: anyone who has it and who got it using Github may use it to run a server and need not follow the terms of the AGPL to do so. But this leads to problems with other restrictive licenses as well, such as the GPL, since as long as someone is only distributing your software via Github, they have a license to reproduce it without regard to other terms like modification of source, and other Github users have a license to download and use it.

belorn 10y ago
Even if we see it as a granted license, separately from the AGPL, it would be "solely on GitHub" that people can enjoy those permissions and the permission do not allow making copies that leaves github. This would of course not work if github became in future a hosting service where people could run projects as services on their platform.
- randallsquared 10y ago
  The paragraph in question is one of the paragraphs under [D.5, License Grant to Other Users](https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service-draft/#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service-dra...): If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you hereby 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. There seem to me (remember, IANAL) to be three rights granted here to each user of github: 1. to access your Content through the GitHub Service, 2. [and] to use, display and perform your Content, 3. [and] to reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality. The second right is not limited to "on GitHub". Therefore, if your content is anything that can be used by linking, such as an image, javascript, etc, you're granting each github user the right to use that on their site. From the pushback on this point here and in other comments, I wonder if people are parsing this as 1. a nonexclusive, worldwide license to access your Content through the GitHub Service, 2. and to use, display and perform your Content, and to reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality. ...which seems wrong to me. If that were the intent, then I think it would have been easier to say [...]through the GitHub Service, and to use, display, perform, and reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality. In that way, usage, display, performance, and reproduction rights would be connected to "solely on GitHub".
  - belorn 10y ago
    I agree that the wording is odd if as you say they intended it to only be "on github", through there is one problem. The rights granted by 2 can't be used in isolation from 1 and 3. If you ran the program locally by accessing the content through the GitHub Service, without reproducing the content, 2 should grant you the right to use, display and perform the content. I don't see how you could do that using anything requiring a linker, but I can see how agpl javascript could be in danger if script tags on a website can be linked directly to a file on a github. In that way the content is "access through the GitHub Service", used locally by the browser, but depending on legal theory, not reproduced. In the general case however it is hard to use, display or perform content for which someone can't access or copy.

belorn 10y ago

Even if we see it as a granted license, separately from the AGPL, it would be "solely on GitHub" that people can enjoy those permissions and the permission do not allow making copies that leaves github. This would of course not work if github became in future a hosting service where people could run projects as services on their platform.

randallsquared 10y ago
The paragraph in question is one of the paragraphs under [D.5, License Grant to Other Users](https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service-draft/#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service-dra...): If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you hereby 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. There seem to me (remember, IANAL) to be three rights granted here to each user of github: 1. to access your Content through the GitHub Service, 2. [and] to use, display and perform your Content, 3. [and] to reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality. The second right is not limited to "on GitHub". Therefore, if your content is anything that can be used by linking, such as an image, javascript, etc, you're granting each github user the right to use that on their site. From the pushback on this point here and in other comments, I wonder if people are parsing this as 1. a nonexclusive, worldwide license to access your Content through the GitHub Service, 2. and to use, display and perform your Content, and to reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality. ...which seems wrong to me. If that were the intent, then I think it would have been easier to say [...]through the GitHub Service, and to use, display, perform, and reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality. In that way, usage, display, performance, and reproduction rights would be connected to "solely on GitHub".
- belorn 10y ago
  I agree that the wording is odd if as you say they intended it to only be "on github", through there is one problem. The rights granted by 2 can't be used in isolation from 1 and 3. If you ran the program locally by accessing the content through the GitHub Service, without reproducing the content, 2 should grant you the right to use, display and perform the content. I don't see how you could do that using anything requiring a linker, but I can see how agpl javascript could be in danger if script tags on a website can be linked directly to a file on a github. In that way the content is "access through the GitHub Service", used locally by the browser, but depending on legal theory, not reproduced. In the general case however it is hard to use, display or perform content for which someone can't access or copy.