4 ms·

What's this file then? https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

by dwild 8y ago

jakear 8y ago
A legal response to my ethical one. When I already granted the legal aspect of the argument.
- yebyen 8y ago
  That's a technical response to your technical question. The license is there, in the master branch. I don't see any reverted commit, the code is simply licensed as MIT as far as we can tell.
  - jakear 8y ago
    https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/commit/f1d0c1d88417f85ec66fa5629beca64ef71ac8b8#diff-3261b6aa3ae37f4f5a9faa60fb4a6845 https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/commit/f1d0c1d88417f85ec... This is the revert of the mistakenly committed code. In this repository's readme there is a link to a thread where (presumably the author, I didn't check) says that the public should be able to use the proprietary URLs because a commit was made that contained them (the parent of the above), and thus they are open source. While this may be technically true, and legally sound, I still claim it is ethically ill founded. You don't need to share my ethical framework. I do not want, for instance, see the extension gallery become encrypted as a result of third party applications breaking the EULA. This is a very distinct possibility, and it could prevent people such as myself who normally compile vscode themselves, and download and install the VSIX packages manually, from doing so. That being said, a team member has stated that injecting the URL into your own product.json is fine (https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/1557#issuecomment-173449135 https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/1557#issuecomment...). So I could be overreacting here. But to me the question is purely a moral one, and a question of what kind of president this sets. I don't believe the community should be trying to find legal "gotchas" in order to get around reasonable limitations set in place by a team, else teams will begin to stop using as permissive licenses as they do.
    - yebyen 8y ago
      > able to use the proprietary URLs because a commit was made that contained them (the parent of the above), and thus they are open source You're right about one thing, I don't need to agree with your ethical framework, especially if it means that somehow a URL that I received with no access restrictions or controls, and publicly available data shared behind it, is somehow afforded copyright protections that would restrict me or anyone who received the link from then re-sharing a link to the URL. The courts in US at least have rejected that argument. > Fortunately, courts generally agree that linking to another website does not infringe the copyrights of that site, nor does it give rise to a likelihood of confusion necessary for a federal trademark infringement claim. [1] If I took a copy of what was at the URL and redistributed it without receiving a proper license first, then I could be in legal and ethical jeopardy. But simply putting the URL into the product.json file is akin to linking, and the courts seem to have roundly agreed that a Uniform Resource Locator or a Link is a non-infringing form of protected free speech. At any rate, I hope you see how I may have mis-interpreted what you actually said, as something other than what you've now explained that you meant. It wasn't clear at all. [1]: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-material...

What's this file then? https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

by dwild 8y ago

What's this file then? https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

jakear 8y ago

A legal response to my ethical one. When I already granted the legal aspect of the argument.

yebyen 8y ago
That's a technical response to your technical question. The license is there, in the master branch. I don't see any reverted commit, the code is simply licensed as MIT as far as we can tell.
- jakear 8y ago
  https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/commit/f1d0c1d88417f85ec66fa5629beca64ef71ac8b8#diff-3261b6aa3ae37f4f5a9faa60fb4a6845 https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/commit/f1d0c1d88417f85ec... This is the revert of the mistakenly committed code. In this repository's readme there is a link to a thread where (presumably the author, I didn't check) says that the public should be able to use the proprietary URLs because a commit was made that contained them (the parent of the above), and thus they are open source. While this may be technically true, and legally sound, I still claim it is ethically ill founded. You don't need to share my ethical framework. I do not want, for instance, see the extension gallery become encrypted as a result of third party applications breaking the EULA. This is a very distinct possibility, and it could prevent people such as myself who normally compile vscode themselves, and download and install the VSIX packages manually, from doing so. That being said, a team member has stated that injecting the URL into your own product.json is fine (https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/1557#issuecomment-173449135 https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/1557#issuecomment...). So I could be overreacting here. But to me the question is purely a moral one, and a question of what kind of president this sets. I don't believe the community should be trying to find legal "gotchas" in order to get around reasonable limitations set in place by a team, else teams will begin to stop using as permissive licenses as they do.
  - yebyen 8y ago
    > able to use the proprietary URLs because a commit was made that contained them (the parent of the above), and thus they are open source You're right about one thing, I don't need to agree with your ethical framework, especially if it means that somehow a URL that I received with no access restrictions or controls, and publicly available data shared behind it, is somehow afforded copyright protections that would restrict me or anyone who received the link from then re-sharing a link to the URL. The courts in US at least have rejected that argument. > Fortunately, courts generally agree that linking to another website does not infringe the copyrights of that site, nor does it give rise to a likelihood of confusion necessary for a federal trademark infringement claim. [1] If I took a copy of what was at the URL and redistributed it without receiving a proper license first, then I could be in legal and ethical jeopardy. But simply putting the URL into the product.json file is akin to linking, and the courts seem to have roundly agreed that a Uniform Resource Locator or a Link is a non-infringing form of protected free speech. At any rate, I hope you see how I may have mis-interpreted what you actually said, as something other than what you've now explained that you meant. It wasn't clear at all. [1]: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-material...