7 ms·

I’m not sure this is a completely fair take, I think the original question is legitimate and relevant. Github’s TOS does in fact ask the contributor to grant a

by dahart 5y ago

I’m not sure this is a completely fair take, I think the original question is legitimate and relevant. Github’s TOS does in fact ask the contributor to grant a license for GH to host and serve their code from GH servers. That is both reproduction and distribution as defined by copyright law, and copyright covers both of those at the same time https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ (Edit and BTW GH calls out their ‘distribution’ in section D.4 of their TOS explicitly, but without using the word “distribute”. They say you grant them the right to “publish” and “share” code you upload, which means “distribute” under copyright law. They also imply that by spelling out the terms under which they do not “distribute”, which is anytime the content is used outside of GitHub’s services.) I don’t think you’re correct that the term “redistribution” means either going into another product, nor that it implies a claim of ownership. Putting works into another product is sometimes known as making a derivative work, while “redistributing” is quite commonly used to mean copy-and-distribute as-is. Redistribution can happen via license as well, it requires permission by the copyright owner, but does not imply the redistributor is (or is claiming to be) the copyright owner.

moralestapia 5y ago
>I think the original question is legitimate and relevant You didn't see the original question, it was edited, so we cannot discuss that further. "[...] which means “distribute” under copyright law" <-- Citation needed please, because I don't think that's correct. From the site you linked: "Distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending." What I seem to grasp about the difference between reproducing and redistributing is that it has to do with the concept of "transfer of ownership". Also derivate work and redistribution are not mutually exclusive. The moment you create a new thing and start distributing it (even if you do not modify it), you become the de facto owner of that new product, and copyright law is trying to limit the extent of the rights that apply there. So, in the case of music, it's different thing to play (reproduce) a song than to create a new album with your favorite artists that happens to include that particular song (redistribution).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dahart 5y ago
  > "Distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending." > What I seem to grasp about the difference between reproducing and redistributing is that it has to do with the concept of "transfer of ownership". Also derivate work and redistribution are not mutually exclusive. What you've misunderstood is it is the copies that are sold, not the copyrights. * edit > create a new album with your favorite artists that happens to include that particular song (redistribution). This is not what redistribution means. You seem confused about this word.
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    >What you've misunderstood is it is the copies that are sold, not the copyrights. Sorry, I'm not following you anymore. I don't even know what you mean by that sentence. Edit: >This is not what redistribution means. You seem confused about this word. But, that's exactly what redistribution entails ...
    - dahart 5y ago
      > Sorry, I'm not following you anymore. I don't even know what you mean by that sentence. The transfer of ownership you referred to is a transfer of ownership of a copy, it is not a transfer of ownership of the original work itself. You misunderstood the passage you quoted to mean that redistribution is transferring ownership of the work itself, as in copyright ownership of the work. But the text you quoted is only talking about transferring ownership of the copies. The text you chose makes more sense in the context of physical copies of books or "phonorecords".
      - moralestapia 5y ago
        I'm not following your logic, really. Copyright is meant to protect original/authentic/unprecedented expressions, disregarding the medium where they may exist. So I don't really get your point in trying to make distinction between a copy or a "master"(?) or whatever. What's at stake is the originality of the expression and what kind of rights does somebody else (i.e. everyone but the creator) have (or not!) over it. Can I make copies of this original expression? (y/n) Can I use this into a new product of my own? (y/n) Whether something is already a copy or not does not really change the extent of the rights that you have (unless it's explicitly stated in the license, of course).

by dahart 5y ago

moralestapia 5y ago

>I think the original question is legitimate and relevant You didn't see the original question, it was edited, so we cannot discuss that further. "[...] which means “distribute” under copyright law" <-- Citation needed please, because I don't think that's correct. From the site you linked: "Distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending." What I seem to grasp about the difference between reproducing and redistributing is that it has to do with the concept of "transfer of ownership". Also derivate work and redistribution are not mutually exclusive. The moment you create a new thing and start distributing it (even if you do not modify it), you become the de facto owner of that new product, and copyright law is trying to limit the extent of the rights that apply there. So, in the case of music, it's different thing to play (reproduce) a song than to create a new album with your favorite artists that happens to include that particular song (redistribution).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dahart 5y ago
> "Distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending." > What I seem to grasp about the difference between reproducing and redistributing is that it has to do with the concept of "transfer of ownership". Also derivate work and redistribution are not mutually exclusive. What you've misunderstood is it is the copies that are sold, not the copyrights. * edit > create a new album with your favorite artists that happens to include that particular song (redistribution). This is not what redistribution means. You seem confused about this word.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  >What you've misunderstood is it is the copies that are sold, not the copyrights. Sorry, I'm not following you anymore. I don't even know what you mean by that sentence. Edit: >This is not what redistribution means. You seem confused about this word. But, that's exactly what redistribution entails ...
  - dahart 5y ago
    > Sorry, I'm not following you anymore. I don't even know what you mean by that sentence. The transfer of ownership you referred to is a transfer of ownership of a copy, it is not a transfer of ownership of the original work itself. You misunderstood the passage you quoted to mean that redistribution is transferring ownership of the work itself, as in copyright ownership of the work. But the text you quoted is only talking about transferring ownership of the copies. The text you chose makes more sense in the context of physical copies of books or "phonorecords".
    - moralestapia 5y ago
      I'm not following your logic, really. Copyright is meant to protect original/authentic/unprecedented expressions, disregarding the medium where they may exist. So I don't really get your point in trying to make distinction between a copy or a "master"(?) or whatever. What's at stake is the originality of the expression and what kind of rights does somebody else (i.e. everyone but the creator) have (or not!) over it. Can I make copies of this original expression? (y/n) Can I use this into a new product of my own? (y/n) Whether something is already a copy or not does not really change the extent of the rights that you have (unless it's explicitly stated in the license, of course).