3 ms·

> You're confusing reproduction with redistribution. It seems like you're confused; GitHub's terms require users to grant both of those. Copyright law also cov

by dahart 5y ago

> You're confusing reproduction with redistribution. It seems like you're confused; GitHub's terms require users to grant both of those. Copyright law also covers both.

moralestapia 5y ago
>GitHub's terms require users to grant both of those Last time I checked (about an hour ago), that wasn't true. Feel free to provide evidence to support your argument.
- dahart 5y ago
  > Last time I checked (about an hour ago), that wasn't true. Feel free to provide evidence to support your argument. https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#a-definitions https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o... "publish" and "share" mean redistribution. "Store" and "copy" mean reproduce.
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    >"publish" and "share" mean redistribution No. That's something you believe, but it's not necessarily true. Check here, https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-rights-copyright-owners-have/ https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-rights-copyright-own... Again, distribution has to do with a transfer of ownership. In layman terms, Github can show your code to others but it cannot give (as in ownership) your code to them. It's a bit tricky here since on the web showing something literally means making a copy at some point, but try to view things under the light of "who owns what" and it's a bit easier to grasp. If you browse through someone's repository, it's pretty clear who the owner of that code is, if a program gives you a chunk of code that it "got from somewhere" there's definitely some sort of change of ownership operation going on; which in this case is interesting, as it went from attributed to someone to missing/unknown.
    - dahart 5y ago
      > Again, distribution has to do with a transfer of ownership You're mixing sub-threads here, but you're still confused. Distribution is a transfer of ownership of a copy, it does not grant copyrights or ownership of the work. You can buy a book that was distributed, and that does not give you the right to make copies of the book. > Github can show your code to others but it cannot give (as in ownership) your code to them. In the digital world, showing is "distributing", and copyright law is clear about this. You should perhaps read the definitions that are in the copyright law itself, and try to understand them: "“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. To perform or display a work “publicly” means— (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf
      - moralestapia 5y ago
        You make some good points, here and on the other comments, so I'm not arguing against you. >In the digital world, showing is "distributing" [...] I guess it has to do with how copyright law adapts to the specific circumstances of this particular case. I guess we won't get an answer until a judge justifies some sort of resolution on either side. My take is that: * GH showing you some source code on their website is akin to reproduction; even though, of course, a binary copy of the code was made and was transmitted to your local browser in order to be displayed. while * GH taking chunks of code from here and there, and making them available into a new product from which they claim ownership (or the final user, or whatever) is more akin to the physical concept of redistribution. But we'll have to wait and see.

by dahart 5y ago

> You're confusing reproduction with redistribution. It seems like you're confused; GitHub's terms require users to grant both of those. Copyright law also covers both.

moralestapia 5y ago

>GitHub's terms require users to grant both of those Last time I checked (about an hour ago), that wasn't true. Feel free to provide evidence to support your argument.

dahart 5y ago
> Last time I checked (about an hour ago), that wasn't true. Feel free to provide evidence to support your argument. https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#a-definitions https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o... "publish" and "share" mean redistribution. "Store" and "copy" mean reproduce.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  >"publish" and "share" mean redistribution No. That's something you believe, but it's not necessarily true. Check here, https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-rights-copyright-owners-have/ https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-rights-copyright-own... Again, distribution has to do with a transfer of ownership. In layman terms, Github can show your code to others but it cannot give (as in ownership) your code to them. It's a bit tricky here since on the web showing something literally means making a copy at some point, but try to view things under the light of "who owns what" and it's a bit easier to grasp. If you browse through someone's repository, it's pretty clear who the owner of that code is, if a program gives you a chunk of code that it "got from somewhere" there's definitely some sort of change of ownership operation going on; which in this case is interesting, as it went from attributed to someone to missing/unknown.
  - dahart 5y ago
    > Again, distribution has to do with a transfer of ownership You're mixing sub-threads here, but you're still confused. Distribution is a transfer of ownership of a copy, it does not grant copyrights or ownership of the work. You can buy a book that was distributed, and that does not give you the right to make copies of the book. > Github can show your code to others but it cannot give (as in ownership) your code to them. In the digital world, showing is "distributing", and copyright law is clear about this. You should perhaps read the definitions that are in the copyright law itself, and try to understand them: "“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. To perform or display a work “publicly” means— (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf
    - moralestapia 5y ago
      You make some good points, here and on the other comments, so I'm not arguing against you. >In the digital world, showing is "distributing" [...] I guess it has to do with how copyright law adapts to the specific circumstances of this particular case. I guess we won't get an answer until a judge justifies some sort of resolution on either side. My take is that: * GH showing you some source code on their website is akin to reproduction; even though, of course, a binary copy of the code was made and was transmitted to your local browser in order to be displayed. while * GH taking chunks of code from here and there, and making them available into a new product from which they claim ownership (or the final user, or whatever) is more akin to the physical concept of redistribution. But we'll have to wait and see.