3 ms·

> are their contributions automatically licensed under the same MIT license as the original repository? Yes. GitHub clarify this in their terms of service: htt

> are their contributions automatically licensed under the same MIT license as the original repository? Yes. GitHub clarify this in their terms of service: https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#6-contributions-under-repository-license https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o... > have they (almost certainly inadvertently) assigned copyright over their changes to me? (They're asking me to merge changes from a repository which contains a copyright declaration in my name.) No. They still own the copyright to their change (unless it's a trivial, un-copyrightable change). It's not uncommon to require contributors to reassign copyright.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
I think the OP is wondering why, since the two answers seem to be contradictory positions. IANAL, but here's my understanding: in the US copyright is automatic. You gain the copyright in anything you write automatically unless you explicitly give it up. A PR does not have this explicitness so it doesn't transfer the copyright. OTOH, the license choice is not an automatic right. By PR'ing on a repo with a license, you are implicitly choosing that license. The GitHub Terms and Conditions make this implicitness more explicit, but AFAICT it's not theoretically necessary. However clarity is always super useful in a legal context.
- dspillett 5y ago
  > I think the OP is wondering why, since the two answers seem to be contradictory positions. They aren't really contradictory as they are separate concepts so covered by different conventions. Copyright: the new contributor has copyright of the code they produced because this is automatic (in most jurisdictions at least), and they keep that unless they explicitly reassign it. Licence: as the licence has not been changed in their fork, the old licence remains. If they change the licence in future then things are a little more grey for future contributions, and it depends on the licence. But they can't change the licence of your code unless the existing licence explicitly allows that. There may be limits on whether they can change the licence at all (i.e. if the original license is GPL). With MIT all is well in this circumstance. A problem will occur if the core project wants to change their licence at a later date. Again IIRC with MIT this is fine, but with stronger licences they would need to get permission from the copyright holder of parts they are not officially the copyright holder of already, just as the new contributor wouldn't be able to arbitrarily relicense code taken from the primary branch.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

I think the OP is wondering why, since the two answers seem to be contradictory positions. IANAL, but here's my understanding: in the US copyright is automatic. You gain the copyright in anything you write automatically unless you explicitly give it up. A PR does not have this explicitness so it doesn't transfer the copyright. OTOH, the license choice is not an automatic right. By PR'ing on a repo with a license, you are implicitly choosing that license. The GitHub Terms and Conditions make this implicitness more explicit, but AFAICT it's not theoretically necessary. However clarity is always super useful in a legal context.

dspillett 5y ago
> I think the OP is wondering why, since the two answers seem to be contradictory positions. They aren't really contradictory as they are separate concepts so covered by different conventions. Copyright: the new contributor has copyright of the code they produced because this is automatic (in most jurisdictions at least), and they keep that unless they explicitly reassign it. Licence: as the licence has not been changed in their fork, the old licence remains. If they change the licence in future then things are a little more grey for future contributions, and it depends on the licence. But they can't change the licence of your code unless the existing licence explicitly allows that. There may be limits on whether they can change the licence at all (i.e. if the original license is GPL). With MIT all is well in this circumstance. A problem will occur if the core project wants to change their licence at a later date. Again IIRC with MIT this is fine, but with stronger licences they would need to get permission from the copyright holder of parts they are not officially the copyright holder of already, just as the new contributor wouldn't be able to arbitrarily relicense code taken from the primary branch.