3 ms·

> allows GitHub to blatantly violate the license of your code it doesn't allow GitHub to violate any license; it explicitly grants GitHub an additional license

> allows GitHub to blatantly violate the license of your code it doesn't allow GitHub to violate any license; it explicitly grants GitHub an additional license on top of the license you choose for your code. the only way to revoke this license grant to GitHub is to remove your code from github.com. > IANAL but I am heavily skeptical of your confidence here. ok. it's all spelled out in the terms of use. I'll ask you this, though; who do you think Terms of Usage/Service documents are intended to protect?

rossjudson 4y ago
Please. If someone uploads a pirate copy of a movie to GitHub, GitHub doesn't get an additional license to anything, on top of whatever license the uploader chose. Maybe GitHub is saying it's not their fault and that they were misinformed. Those types of arguments usually don't get all that far with copyright violations.
- naikrovek 4y ago
  if someone uploads a pirated movie to github, github won’t get the license if it goes to court, but they won’t get in trouble for the assumption that they had the license, either. the uploader had both pirated and committed wire fraud as gar as the github terms of service agreement is concerned. either way, github is absolved. if a DMCA claim is filed on the movie, then that gets quarantined and removed from the list of things that they can show their users. the user that uploads stuff to github.com attests that they have the right to upload it. by being uploaded, github can assume that it has the rights it asks of users unless and until they are told that they do not have those rights. so, github are covered until they are formally told that they are not, at which point they must restrict access to that data to themselves and others, which they regularly do. these types of arguments do indeed work very well if github reacts promptly when they are told that they are using rights they do not have. github is not primarily used for piracy, like thepiratebay, and thus has a valid claim that they were lied to by a user. this is when the user who uploaded gets involved legally if the true copyright holder chooses to involve them. you being mad at github, microsoft, or me doesn’t make any of us wrong.

rossjudson 4y ago

Please. If someone uploads a pirate copy of a movie to GitHub, GitHub doesn't get an additional license to anything, on top of whatever license the uploader chose. Maybe GitHub is saying it's not their fault and that they were misinformed. Those types of arguments usually don't get all that far with copyright violations.

naikrovek 4y ago
if someone uploads a pirated movie to github, github won’t get the license if it goes to court, but they won’t get in trouble for the assumption that they had the license, either. the uploader had both pirated and committed wire fraud as gar as the github terms of service agreement is concerned. either way, github is absolved. if a DMCA claim is filed on the movie, then that gets quarantined and removed from the list of things that they can show their users. the user that uploads stuff to github.com attests that they have the right to upload it. by being uploaded, github can assume that it has the rights it asks of users unless and until they are told that they do not have those rights. so, github are covered until they are formally told that they are not, at which point they must restrict access to that data to themselves and others, which they regularly do. these types of arguments do indeed work very well if github reacts promptly when they are told that they are using rights they do not have. github is not primarily used for piracy, like thepiratebay, and thus has a valid claim that they were lied to by a user. this is when the user who uploaded gets involved legally if the true copyright holder chooses to involve them. you being mad at github, microsoft, or me doesn’t make any of us wrong.