4 ms·
> 1. GitHub has a valid license to distribute it (as a result of their TOS) From the GitHub TOS someone posted: "... license to use, display, and perform Your
by balfirevic 5y ago
> 1. GitHub has a valid license to distribute it (as a result of their TOS)
From the GitHub TOS someone posted:
"... license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking)"
I'm not sure if cloning from GitHub to your local computer falls under "reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality" (due to "solely on GitHub" part).
- gpm 5y agoI'm not completely sure either, I don't think you would get a definitive answer short of litigating it (and let's be honest, no one is litigating over this). (Again, not a lawyer, not super familiar with this part of copyright law, but...) I'd argue that the copy is made on githubs server and then sent to me, and I simply move the sole copy around (or to the extent that I make a new copy it is a lawful copy of the network traffic for archival purposes under 17 USC 117 (a) (2)). That "git clone" is clearly a integral part of githubs service so the license is clearly intended to cover it. That "git clone" is not meaningfully different from "wget" from "a web browser" - again the license is clearly intended to cover this. That any liability that does exist falls on GitHub as the party making the copy. I'm not sure which if any of those arguments would convince a court though