3 ms·
> Github (and by extension Microsoft) is gambling on the fact that their license agreement granting them a license to the code in exchange for access to the pla
by rlpb 5y ago
> Github (and by extension Microsoft) is gambling on the fact that their license agreement granting them a license to the code in exchange for access to the platform supersedes the individual copyright notices attached to each repo.
The person who has the account on Github and uploads code to them rarely owns the copyright on all of the code, and therefore doesn't have the right to delegate to Github any further licensing permission.
- 542458 5y agoLegally I believe that’s the person who uploaded the code’s infringement rather than GitHub’s, so long as GitHub deals with takedown requests in a timely manner as per the DMCA. Furthermore, as described in the article, the legal precedent has been that you don’t actually need copyright to something to train a model on it. You may think that’s silly or inconsistent, but that’s how the legal precedent is.
- rlpb 5y ago> that’s the person who uploaded the code’s infringement rather than GitHub’s That's not how it works. Anyone and everyone who distributes it is infringing and carries risk of enforcement action. That could also be someone further downstream. > Furthermore, as described in the article, the legal precedent has been that you don’t actually need copyright to something to train a model on it. I'm not commenting on this aspect.
- 542458 5y agoThat is absolutely how it works. https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca “The DMCA “safe harbors” protect service providers from monetary liability based on the allegedly infringing activities of third parties.”
- rlpb 5y agoThat does nothing to derisk those further downstream of infringing content.