2 ms·

This argument doesn't make sense to me (under US law) given that > (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions

by gpm 5y ago

This argument doesn't make sense to me (under US law) given that > (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: > (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

mrpimpunicorn 5y ago
(a) doesn't hold because you aren't the owner of a copyrighted work that is licensed to you. You're also not even being given a license in this context. Read GitHub's TOS, they explicitly state you give them the right to copy your work in order to allow for forking because their lawyers KNOW they have no rights otherwise and could be sued.
- gpm 5y ago
  (a) doesn't refer to owning the copyright, it refers to owning the physical copy (the hardware which the information is saved on, the paper and ink in a book). GitHub's TOS requires permission to copy, because github is not just executing your code.