4 ms·
That is a problem. Thankfully, the language in Github's terms of service mitigates this a bit, although it'd be still ideal for the author to add a license too:
by FreeFull 9y ago
That is a problem. Thankfully, the language in Github's terms of service mitigates this a bit, although it'd be still ideal for the author to add a license too:
"If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking)."
https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#4-license-grant-to-us https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#4-...
- ComputerGuru 9y agoI’ve never heard a less realistic / more cop-out licensing policy. You can reproduce it, but only on github. You can’t even clone it locally (as the license still applies to your fork). It’s only there so you can’t sue GitHub for not detecting the lack of license and disabling the fork button.
- Something1234 9y agoThere's nonprivate repositories with a disabled fork button?! I've never seen that. I didn't think it was possible to disable forking on github, I know that you can on bitbucket.
- ComputerGuru 9y agoThat’s my point :)