5 ms·

I abandoned github when they put code that was not licensed (is: copyright retained) and reproduced it and saved it in their Arctic Vault without the authors co

I abandoned github when they put code that was not licensed (is: copyright retained) and reproduced it and saved it in their Arctic Vault without the authors consent (mine)

Retr0id 5y ago
How is the Arctic Vault different from any other offsite backup? I suppose one issue is that you (presumably) can't request deletion from it (which may even be a GDPR violation). Edit: I looked up the relevant GDPR stuff, apparently there's an exemption for when "erasing your data would prejudice scientific or historical research, or archiving that is in the public interest.", which it arguably includes the Arctic Vault.
- dheera 5y ago
  GDPR only applies to EU users.
  - Retr0id 5y ago
    Arctic Vault includes code written by EU users, and there is similar legislation in non-EU jurisdictions, e.g. California's CCPA
- corty 5y ago
  There is an exception paragraph for various kinds of archives in GDPR: https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-89-safeguards-and-derogations-relating-to-processing-for-archiving-purposes-the-public-interest-scientific-or-hi-GDPR.htm https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-89-safeguards-a...
wcerfgba 5y ago
What's wrong with the Arctic Code Vault [1]? Is the only problem that they didn't seek your consent? How is it different to deploying a new availability zone and having your public repos accessible on another server? Your code is preserved verbatim, and it's not possible for GitHub to provide their service without the right to make verbatim copies of your code, which presumably you agreed to as part of their ToS. [1] https://archiveprogram.github.com/arctic-vault/ https://archiveprogram.github.com/arctic-vault/
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > What's wrong with the Arctic Code Vault It's nothing more than a publicity stunt whose one and only purpose is to advertise GitHub.
- calvinmorrison 5y ago
  I guess copying my code to microfiche is basically reprinting it without my permission.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    But LTO is fine? I was going to ask if it was because it's not intended as a backup, but that's not even true, this is intended as a backup on a long time scale.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > is basically reprinting it without my permission. What if I were to tell you, that in order to publish any code, on the internet, that code has to be "reprinted" to many different computers and places? In fact, whenever you yourself need to even access that code, that code is copied over to many different computers along to way, as is necessary to send it to you.
lifthrasiir 5y ago
Github does not own the Arctic Vault, there is an independent company behind it [1]. Given its purpose as a long-term archival, it is likely that exemptions to the copyright for (library) archival can apply here. [EDIT: This is probably not true, see the reply for the reason.] [1] https://www.piql.com/awa/ https://www.piql.com/awa/
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > Github does not own the Arctic Vault, there is an independent company behind it Github are the ones doing all the archiving. So, in essence, they do own that. Piql are just the ones providing the storage: it's a commercial for-profit entity employed for backup by another commercial for-profit entity.
  - lifthrasiir 5y ago
    It is technically true, but the Arctic World Archive specifically "accepts deposits that are globally significant for the benefit of future generations, as well as information that is significant to your organisation or to you individually" [1]. So it doesn't accept any data (at least as far as I see) and the Github archive should also have met this criteria. By the way, my initial statement that it may qualify for copyright exemptions turned out to be false for a different reason. They only apply when the library and/or archive in question is open to the public, and the Github Arctic Vault isn't. Thus I think it's actually a Github's generic usage grant in the ToS [2] that allows for the Vault. The Copilot is, of course, very different to anything described in the ToS. [1] https://arcticworldarchive.org/contribute/ https://arcticworldarchive.org/contribute/ [2] https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#4-license-grant-to-us https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > but the Arctic World Archive specifically... ...provides prime-rate marketing bullshit in its marketing materials > Thus I think it's actually a Github's generic usage grant in the ToS If you refer to Section D.4, then: - Arctic Vault is not "for future generations", but for GitHub only, since that section doesn't permit GitHum to just make copies willy-nilly for anything other than "as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time" and "make backups" - This specifically makes GitHub "the owner" of that data, and not "some third-party" as you originally suggested
CognitiveLens 5y ago
I haven't read this interpretation of the Arctic Vault project - presumably most users of GitHub are okay with their code being reproduced/backed up across many production servers for fault tolerance. Making an 'extra special' long-term backup in the Arctic Vault doesn't seem like a meaningfully different action to me - i.e. using a cloud-based host is essentially opting in to this kind of 'license violation'. If they had taken one of their existing DB/disk backups and called it a vault, would that have been an issue?

I abandoned github when they put code that was not licensed (is: copyright retained) and reproduced it and saved it in their Arctic Vault without the authors consent (mine)

Retr0id 5y ago

How is the Arctic Vault different from any other offsite backup? I suppose one issue is that you (presumably) can't request deletion from it (which may even be a GDPR violation). Edit: I looked up the relevant GDPR stuff, apparently there's an exemption for when "erasing your data would prejudice scientific or historical research, or archiving that is in the public interest.", which it arguably includes the Arctic Vault.

dheera 5y ago
GDPR only applies to EU users.
- Retr0id 5y ago
  Arctic Vault includes code written by EU users, and there is similar legislation in non-EU jurisdictions, e.g. California's CCPA
corty 5y ago
There is an exception paragraph for various kinds of archives in GDPR: https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-89-safeguards-and-derogations-relating-to-processing-for-archiving-purposes-the-public-interest-scientific-or-hi-GDPR.htm https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-89-safeguards-a...

wcerfgba 5y ago

What's wrong with the Arctic Code Vault [1]? Is the only problem that they didn't seek your consent? How is it different to deploying a new availability zone and having your public repos accessible on another server? Your code is preserved verbatim, and it's not possible for GitHub to provide their service without the right to make verbatim copies of your code, which presumably you agreed to as part of their ToS. [1] https://archiveprogram.github.com/arctic-vault/ https://archiveprogram.github.com/arctic-vault/

dmitriid 5y ago
> What's wrong with the Arctic Code Vault It's nothing more than a publicity stunt whose one and only purpose is to advertise GitHub.
calvinmorrison 5y ago
I guess copying my code to microfiche is basically reprinting it without my permission.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  But LTO is fine? I was going to ask if it was because it's not intended as a backup, but that's not even true, this is intended as a backup on a long time scale.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > is basically reprinting it without my permission. What if I were to tell you, that in order to publish any code, on the internet, that code has to be "reprinted" to many different computers and places? In fact, whenever you yourself need to even access that code, that code is copied over to many different computers along to way, as is necessary to send it to you.

lifthrasiir 5y ago

Github does not own the Arctic Vault, there is an independent company behind it [1]. Given its purpose as a long-term archival, it is likely that exemptions to the copyright for (library) archival can apply here. [EDIT: This is probably not true, see the reply for the reason.] [1] https://www.piql.com/awa/ https://www.piql.com/awa/

dmitriid 5y ago
> Github does not own the Arctic Vault, there is an independent company behind it Github are the ones doing all the archiving. So, in essence, they do own that. Piql are just the ones providing the storage: it's a commercial for-profit entity employed for backup by another commercial for-profit entity.
- lifthrasiir 5y ago
  It is technically true, but the Arctic World Archive specifically "accepts deposits that are globally significant for the benefit of future generations, as well as information that is significant to your organisation or to you individually" [1]. So it doesn't accept any data (at least as far as I see) and the Github archive should also have met this criteria. By the way, my initial statement that it may qualify for copyright exemptions turned out to be false for a different reason. They only apply when the library and/or archive in question is open to the public, and the Github Arctic Vault isn't. Thus I think it's actually a Github's generic usage grant in the ToS [2] that allows for the Vault. The Copilot is, of course, very different to anything described in the ToS. [1] https://arcticworldarchive.org/contribute/ https://arcticworldarchive.org/contribute/ [2] https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#4-license-grant-to-us https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > but the Arctic World Archive specifically... ...provides prime-rate marketing bullshit in its marketing materials > Thus I think it's actually a Github's generic usage grant in the ToS If you refer to Section D.4, then: - Arctic Vault is not "for future generations", but for GitHub only, since that section doesn't permit GitHum to just make copies willy-nilly for anything other than "as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time" and "make backups" - This specifically makes GitHub "the owner" of that data, and not "some third-party" as you originally suggested

CognitiveLens 5y ago

I haven't read this interpretation of the Arctic Vault project - presumably most users of GitHub are okay with their code being reproduced/backed up across many production servers for fault tolerance. Making an 'extra special' long-term backup in the Arctic Vault doesn't seem like a meaningfully different action to me - i.e. using a cloud-based host is essentially opting in to this kind of 'license violation'. If they had taken one of their existing DB/disk backups and called it a vault, would that have been an issue?