3 ms·

> Second best case scenario Not really, consider for example repositories mirrored to Github. It seems unclear who has the rights to grant this permission any

by tazjin 5y ago

> Second best case scenario Not really, consider for example repositories mirrored to Github. It seems unclear who has the rights to grant this permission anyways (with free software licenses). Probably the copyright holder? Who that is might also be complicated.

neom 5y ago
Good point, I would have thought GH requires you to agree in some TOS that you have permission to put the code on GH (but I don't know)? If so, could that point be put aside? (I'm not a software engineer so sorry if that made no sense. Super curious about the whole codepilot thing from a business and community perspective)
- tazjin 5y ago
  > that you have permission to put the code on GH This is the complicated bit: All open-source licenses grant you permission to redistribute the code (usually with stipulations like having to include the license), so you are almost always allowed to upload the code to Github. What it doesn't mean however is that you're the copyright holder of that code, you're merely redistributing work that somebody else has ownership of. So who gets to decide what Github is allowed to do with it? I expect this will end up in courts and we won't get a definite answer before that.
  - neom 5y ago
    If you'll entertain me on a hypothetical for a moment. Suppose then the copious amount of intelligent folks over at GH know this will eventually end up in the courts, and expected that from the start. Would you suggest they messaged/rolled it out any differently? Did they do exactly what they needed to do so that it did end up in the courts? Should they have done anything differently to not piss folks off so much? Sorry for the million questions, you seem to know/have thought a bit about this. Thanks! :)
iimblack 5y ago
In that hypothetical I wouldn’t think GitHub is responsible for determining if a repository is mirrored and what the implications of that are. They just need to look at what license is on the repo in GitHub.

by tazjin 5y ago

neom 5y ago

Good point, I would have thought GH requires you to agree in some TOS that you have permission to put the code on GH (but I don't know)? If so, could that point be put aside? (I'm not a software engineer so sorry if that made no sense. Super curious about the whole codepilot thing from a business and community perspective)

tazjin 5y ago
> that you have permission to put the code on GH This is the complicated bit: All open-source licenses grant you permission to redistribute the code (usually with stipulations like having to include the license), so you are almost always allowed to upload the code to Github. What it doesn't mean however is that you're the copyright holder of that code, you're merely redistributing work that somebody else has ownership of. So who gets to decide what Github is allowed to do with it? I expect this will end up in courts and we won't get a definite answer before that.
- neom 5y ago
  If you'll entertain me on a hypothetical for a moment. Suppose then the copious amount of intelligent folks over at GH know this will eventually end up in the courts, and expected that from the start. Would you suggest they messaged/rolled it out any differently? Did they do exactly what they needed to do so that it did end up in the courts? Should they have done anything differently to not piss folks off so much? Sorry for the million questions, you seem to know/have thought a bit about this. Thanks! :)

iimblack 5y ago

In that hypothetical I wouldn’t think GitHub is responsible for determining if a repository is mirrored and what the implications of that are. They just need to look at what license is on the repo in GitHub.