3 ms·

Github has a clickthrough license that probably gives them this right. If you are of the legal opinion that one cannot simply wish away some fairly fundamental

Github has a clickthrough license that probably gives them this right. If you are of the legal opinion that one cannot simply wish away some fairly fundamental rights through something as blazé as a clickthrough license, then that's a problem: It means the even-worse-than-clickthrough FOSS licenses that handwave away merchantability surely have no legal standing either. Then, if you are also of the legal opinion that the relationship between FOSS author and FOSS user is a vendor/buyer one, then what Marek did is _illegal_. At which point Github/microsoft surely regain their right to intervene. You are usually allowed to attack someone if they are about to commit a murder, even if that act would in all other circumstances be a slam-dunk assault case. You're now banking on the notion that the relationship between FOSS author and FOSS user is fundamentally not a vendor/buyer relationship even though github has a sponsors system, the FOSS license uses terms that relate to vendor/buyer relationships, and that nevertheless copyright law still does apply. That's possible, certainly, but that's a lot of coinflips that have to land correctly.

GeekyBear 5y ago
> Github has a clickthrough license that probably gives them this right. If Microsoft is asserting the right to seize control of anybodies open source project any time they choose, they are going to have much bigger issues than if they had simply made a mistake and overstepped their bounds.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  In this case, we have a clear, bad actor. MS has a good reason to intervene on their own platform.
- chii 5y ago
  > seize control of anybodies open source project any time they choose the platform the code is under belongs to microsoft. The only thing they cannot do is impersonate someone (e.g., pretend they were the author and make a commit), because that would be illegal. However, they can roll back a commit from being displayed - it is no different than only showing certain commits (it's a right that a website has - showing _anything_ they wish to). There's no claim of ownership (of the copyright), and there's no seizure of the code IP rights whatsoever (for an example of seizure, see the multitude of DMCA takedowns, which is a right specifically granted to them by the state). Presenting this case as a violation by microsoft is incorrect.

GeekyBear 5y ago

> Github has a clickthrough license that probably gives them this right. If Microsoft is asserting the right to seize control of anybodies open source project any time they choose, they are going to have much bigger issues than if they had simply made a mistake and overstepped their bounds.

chaostheory 5y ago
In this case, we have a clear, bad actor. MS has a good reason to intervene on their own platform.
chii 5y ago
> seize control of anybodies open source project any time they choose the platform the code is under belongs to microsoft. The only thing they cannot do is impersonate someone (e.g., pretend they were the author and make a commit), because that would be illegal. However, they can roll back a commit from being displayed - it is no different than only showing certain commits (it's a right that a website has - showing _anything_ they wish to). There's no claim of ownership (of the copyright), and there's no seizure of the code IP rights whatsoever (for an example of seizure, see the multitude of DMCA takedowns, which is a right specifically granted to them by the state). Presenting this case as a violation by microsoft is incorrect.