3 ms·

You keep the copyright, but you give away all rights. It's mostly semantics - the result is the same.

by lima 9y ago

Klathmon 9y ago
So then couldn't the same apply here?
- pluma 9y ago
  No, not implicitly. You'd need to explicitly assign a transferable right to GitMask so GitMask can transfer it to the repository owner. Accepting the ToS isn't enough for that. Depending on who you ask you need an actual signature on paper to be 100% in the clear. What's worse: GitMask would need to guarantee that any given PR meets these requirements and expose this status to the repository owner. This would make GitMask liable but they could escalate to the original author -- but that in turn would jeopardise the anonymity guarantees to a degree. Imagine the following scenario: 1. Person A creates application X and publishes it under a non-permissive commercial license. 2. Person A uses GitMask to create a PR to an open source project Y of competitor B and includes source code from application X in the PR. 3. Maintainers of project Y merge the PR without being able to verify the identity of the author and publish the updated version. 4. Person A sues competitor B over the use of the source code from application X in project Y. 5. Competitor B blames GitMask for introducing the infringing code. Now depending on what GitMask has done, this could result in different outcomes. A. The status quo: GitMask provided no guarantees about the legal status of the code and retains no information about the author, so competitor B acted in negligence and is fully liable. B. GitMask does provide guarantees but requires no guarantees from the author, so GitMask is at least partly liable. If GitMask retained any information about the author they can try to sue over violation of the ToS but good luck with that. C. GitMask provides guarantees and requires formal guarantees from the author. GitMask is likely liable but they can hold the author accountable. In this scenario GitMask could demonstrate fraudulent behaviour, bad times for person A. IANAL, TINLA.
qznc 9y ago
There are differences between Copyright and Urheberrecht (the german thing). For example, under Urheberrecht an author can always revoke the rights of the publisher, while under Copyright the rights are traded away and nothing remains with the author. In Germany you cannot buy stock photos and use them however you want. The creator may sue you if he thinks he was not treated fairly. Back to source code: No fear! If a programmer gives away source code knowingly under an Open Source licence, it cannot be revoked since the terms of publication are very clear. Still, there is no such concept as "giving copyright to a foundation" under Urheberrecht. In general, Copyright protects the publishers, while Urheberrecht protects the creators.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > For example, under Urheberrecht an author can always revoke the rights of the publisher, while under Copyright the rights are traded away and nothing remains with the author. In copyright, transfers from authors can be reclaimed, though there is a specific 5-year time window (starting 35 years after the grant, basically) for this to be exercised. > In Germany you cannot buy stock photos and use them however you want. The creator may sue you if he thinks he was not treated fairly. The US copyright system has a similar protection for creators of unique or limited physical works of visual art, but it doesn't protect against reproductions in derivative works or use of stock photos.
- pluma 9y ago
  > under Urheberrecht an author can always revoke the rights of the publisher Yes and no. There is such a thing as an irrevocable usage right. But I'll concede that even an irrevocable right can be nullified under the right conditions (e.g. if the person granting it wasn't actually in the legal position to do so).

You keep the copyright, but you give away all rights. It's mostly semantics - the result is the same.

by lima 9y ago

You keep the copyright, but you give away all rights. It's mostly semantics - the result is the same.

Klathmon 9y ago

So then couldn't the same apply here?

pluma 9y ago
No, not implicitly. You'd need to explicitly assign a transferable right to GitMask so GitMask can transfer it to the repository owner. Accepting the ToS isn't enough for that. Depending on who you ask you need an actual signature on paper to be 100% in the clear. What's worse: GitMask would need to guarantee that any given PR meets these requirements and expose this status to the repository owner. This would make GitMask liable but they could escalate to the original author -- but that in turn would jeopardise the anonymity guarantees to a degree. Imagine the following scenario: 1. Person A creates application X and publishes it under a non-permissive commercial license. 2. Person A uses GitMask to create a PR to an open source project Y of competitor B and includes source code from application X in the PR. 3. Maintainers of project Y merge the PR without being able to verify the identity of the author and publish the updated version. 4. Person A sues competitor B over the use of the source code from application X in project Y. 5. Competitor B blames GitMask for introducing the infringing code. Now depending on what GitMask has done, this could result in different outcomes. A. The status quo: GitMask provided no guarantees about the legal status of the code and retains no information about the author, so competitor B acted in negligence and is fully liable. B. GitMask does provide guarantees but requires no guarantees from the author, so GitMask is at least partly liable. If GitMask retained any information about the author they can try to sue over violation of the ToS but good luck with that. C. GitMask provides guarantees and requires formal guarantees from the author. GitMask is likely liable but they can hold the author accountable. In this scenario GitMask could demonstrate fraudulent behaviour, bad times for person A. IANAL, TINLA.

qznc 9y ago

There are differences between Copyright and Urheberrecht (the german thing). For example, under Urheberrecht an author can always revoke the rights of the publisher, while under Copyright the rights are traded away and nothing remains with the author. In Germany you cannot buy stock photos and use them however you want. The creator may sue you if he thinks he was not treated fairly. Back to source code: No fear! If a programmer gives away source code knowingly under an Open Source licence, it cannot be revoked since the terms of publication are very clear. Still, there is no such concept as "giving copyright to a foundation" under Urheberrecht. In general, Copyright protects the publishers, while Urheberrecht protects the creators.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> For example, under Urheberrecht an author can always revoke the rights of the publisher, while under Copyright the rights are traded away and nothing remains with the author. In copyright, transfers from authors can be reclaimed, though there is a specific 5-year time window (starting 35 years after the grant, basically) for this to be exercised. > In Germany you cannot buy stock photos and use them however you want. The creator may sue you if he thinks he was not treated fairly. The US copyright system has a similar protection for creators of unique or limited physical works of visual art, but it doesn't protect against reproductions in derivative works or use of stock photos.
pluma 9y ago
> under Urheberrecht an author can always revoke the rights of the publisher Yes and no. There is such a thing as an irrevocable usage right. But I'll concede that even an irrevocable right can be nullified under the right conditions (e.g. if the person granting it wasn't actually in the legal position to do so).