> 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 on

> 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...