3 ms·
It knows the license applied to the repository. For a private repo it may not be "released" under that license but planned for release. If AcmeCorp is planning
by jzb 4y ago
It knows the license applied to the repository. For a private repo it may not be "released" under that license but planned for release.
If AcmeCorp is planning to release - but hasn't - a project under MIT or whatever, they may have the license declared in the repo but that's not a guarantee it's ever going to be released.
If it's a private repo, and your access has been under your status as an employee, then I don't know that counts as distributed to you under that license. If AcmeCorp later decides to change licenses or not release the software as open source, then it makes sense for GitHub not to let someone continue access.
There are a LOT of holes in the system, but I'm not sure GitHub is in the wrong for deleting access to a private repo if you lose access to an organization or whatever.
- charcircuit 4y agoSoftware can be open source and not released. Employees can legally release it themselves since it is open source.
- jzb 4y agoReally no. The employee doesn’t have that right, it’s not theirs to release unless the employer gives permission.
- funcDropShadow 4y agoNo, the software becomes "Open Source" or "Free Software" the moment someone licenses it to somebody else under such a license. Simply copying a file named LICENSE into some private directory has no legal relevance. As an employee, you usually don't get a license to the work artifacts you are working on.