4 ms·

Why wouldn't they use the code you gave them permission to use by agreeing to their TOS?

by oauea 5y ago

dekken_ 5y ago
Please provide a source, that this is legal.
- themanmaran 5y ago
  https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#:~:text=4.%20License%20Grant%20to%20Us https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...
  - dekken_ 5y ago
    I meant legislation. One set of terms doesn't invalidate another, at least in EU.
roywiggins 5y ago
First off, if this were a good argument GitHub might have made it, but they haven't, have they? They're claiming fair use instead. If they want to make the argument it's covered by their TOS then we can consider it. Secondly, if I release my code under a license that doesn't permit this sort of thing, and someone else publishes the code on GitHub, I haven't agreed to GitHub's terms and the person who did can't give GitHub any more rights over it than I gave them. Not every piece of code on GitHub was written by people who agreed to the TOS, it's quite easy for open source code to move around. Suppose the maintainer of a project moves it from GitLab or whatever, with your contributions intact. The maintainer only has your code because you contributed it under the AGPL or whatever- they can't "license" it to GitHub under more lenient terms than that!
sundarurfriend 5y ago
[1]: > You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video. > This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service The core of it (IMO, IANAL) comes down to "as necessary to provide the Service". It claims a right to "otherwise analyze it on our servers", but the clause "as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time" likely still applies to that. So it comes down to whether Copilot still counts as part of their "Service" that the user agreed to when using the site, or if it's different enough that it's unreasonable to apply that proviso. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#:~:text=4.%20License%20Grant%20to%20Us https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o... (thanks themanmaran)

Why wouldn't they use the code you gave them permission to use by agreeing to their TOS?

by oauea 5y ago

Why wouldn't they use the code you gave them permission to use by agreeing to their TOS?

dekken_ 5y ago

Please provide a source, that this is legal.

themanmaran 5y ago
https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#:~:text=4.%20License%20Grant%20to%20Us https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...
- dekken_ 5y ago
  I meant legislation. One set of terms doesn't invalidate another, at least in EU.

roywiggins 5y ago

First off, if this were a good argument GitHub might have made it, but they haven't, have they? They're claiming fair use instead. If they want to make the argument it's covered by their TOS then we can consider it. Secondly, if I release my code under a license that doesn't permit this sort of thing, and someone else publishes the code on GitHub, I haven't agreed to GitHub's terms and the person who did can't give GitHub any more rights over it than I gave them. Not every piece of code on GitHub was written by people who agreed to the TOS, it's quite easy for open source code to move around. Suppose the maintainer of a project moves it from GitLab or whatever, with your contributions intact. The maintainer only has your code because you contributed it under the AGPL or whatever- they can't "license" it to GitHub under more lenient terms than that!

sundarurfriend 5y ago

[1]: > You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video. > This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service The core of it (IMO, IANAL) comes down to "as necessary to provide the Service". It claims a right to "otherwise analyze it on our servers", but the clause "as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time" likely still applies to that. So it comes down to whether Copilot still counts as part of their "Service" that the user agreed to when using the site, or if it's different enough that it's unreasonable to apply that proviso. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#:~:text=4.%20License%20Grant%20to%20Us https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o... (thanks themanmaran)