4 ms·

You agree to Microsoft's ToS before you can put any code on Github, regardless of the license. You can't opt-out of those terms, regardless of your license, ju

You agree to Microsoft's ToS before you can put any code on Github, regardless of the license. You can't opt-out of those terms, regardless of your license, just as you can't opt out of Facebooks terms which give them the right to use your content for their business or marketing purposes, even if the various chain posts that have spread there might claim otherwise.

jacquesm 4y ago
This is true, but a ToS should not be able to override an important law such as copyright, which provides you with several inalienable rights that you can only contract out of with your explicit consent. Doubly so if the ToS are changed after you post your code there without your explicit approval. I could put text in the ToS of my website that you owe me your firstborn, but that wouldn't make it legal or enforceable.
saurik 4y ago
The vast majority of the code I've written that is on GitHub isn't on GitHub because I would ever have stooped to putting it there, but because it is open source under a license that lets other people redistribute and edit the code (most often GPL or AGPL; maybe some older code under BSD) and they have chosen to use GitHub (which makes me sad, but as far as I'd have been concerned is totally within their rights). Are you claiming that people should not be allowed to clone other peoples' open source projects and put copies up on GitHub?
- pcthrowaway 4y ago
  Well upthread the discussion changed to using a non-open license that prevents people from training AI on it. If you released software under such a license, someone re-uploading to Github would probably be violating their terms or yours. Regardless, Microsoft would probably remove the repo if you contacted them to let them know you're the copyright holder, and the software license is incompatible with their terms. It remains to be seen if they have a way to then clean their training data of the influence. It would be the same situation if someone uploaded any other proprietary code.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    You shouldn't have to though, they have a responsibility all their own to check that they have the rights regarding someone else's copyright before they do what they want to do, rather than to do it anyway and then to wait for the rights holder to come to them. Copyright isn't 'opt in'.
    - pcthrowaway 4y ago
      I mean, if someone uploads a repo that contains proprietary code that also contains CI actions from the proprietary codebase, formatted the same as github actions, they're going to run those actions under the assumption that they are allowed to (even though they aren't, because it means they're running proprietary code). It's all automated. The person uploading the proprietary code would be the one infringing in that case.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Yes, but that's a different discussion. In this case the person does have the rights under the GPL to do what they do, but GitHub does not have an automatic right to assume that that gives them the right to enforce their ToS on the original copyright holder, which they effectively do.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - dolmen 4y ago
      > Copyright isn't 'opt in'. Before 1989, copyright protection was opt-in in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        It's 2023.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > Are you claiming that people should not be allowed to clone other peoples' open source projects and put copies up on GitHub? If the github ToS supercedes the author's own licence, then I guess the uploader is effectively relicensing the code without the author's permission. That would mean the author has cause for action against the uploader, but not against github. I personally dislike git; I find it too complicated, because of features I don't need. Microsoft has always disliked FOSS anf GPL, and I suspect that Copilot is a deliberate effort to undermine it.
friend_and_foe 4y ago
If code with a license, say GPL, goes out somewhere else, by someone else (and therefore I don't have the right to change the license) and then I fork it, as per the license I keep the license and put it on github, and Github violates that license, aren't they violating the law? Don't they then have to remove that code? If that's the case then in that scenario the license supersedes the ToS right? Now imagine this: I write some code, license it, but don't publish it yet. It's licensed. Then I upload it to github. Does the license supersede the ToS? Doesn't github have to remove the code as a ToS violation? What if I show my roommate the licensed code first, does that count as publishing? The whole thing is absurd on it's face. All code is licensed before it ever goes on github. The license always supersedes the ToS. All licenses violate the ToS. All code on github should be removed by Microsoft for ToS violations or because Microsoft cannot abide their licenses. Their ToS is fucking illegal.
- pcthrowaway 4y ago
  > If code with a license, say GPL, goes out somewhere else, by someone else If the code is GPL licensed, you can't relicense it under a non-FOSS license like you're talking about > Don't they then have to remove that code? Yes, if code gets uploaded whose license is incompatible with Microsoft's terms, they probably do have to remove it. > Now imagine this: I write some code, license it, but don't publish it yet. It's licensed. Then I upload it to github. Does the license supersede the ToS? Doesn't github have to remove the code as a ToS violation Again, yes, they probably do, and they also probably have an obligation to clean their training data of it. However, if you're the copyright holder of the code and you agree to their ToS before uploading, they might make the case that you agreeing to their ToS does grant them the license to use it in training data.
  - friend_and_foe 4y ago
    Not re-license. I upload with the same license I got it with, as per the license. So then Github is breaking the law a significant portion of the time then at the very least?
    - 4y ago
quickthrower2 4y ago
Microsoft cannot opt out of common law either

jacquesm 4y ago

This is true, but a ToS should not be able to override an important law such as copyright, which provides you with several inalienable rights that you can only contract out of with your explicit consent. Doubly so if the ToS are changed after you post your code there without your explicit approval. I could put text in the ToS of my website that you owe me your firstborn, but that wouldn't make it legal or enforceable.

saurik 4y ago

The vast majority of the code I've written that is on GitHub isn't on GitHub because I would ever have stooped to putting it there, but because it is open source under a license that lets other people redistribute and edit the code (most often GPL or AGPL; maybe some older code under BSD) and they have chosen to use GitHub (which makes me sad, but as far as I'd have been concerned is totally within their rights). Are you claiming that people should not be allowed to clone other peoples' open source projects and put copies up on GitHub?

pcthrowaway 4y ago
Well upthread the discussion changed to using a non-open license that prevents people from training AI on it. If you released software under such a license, someone re-uploading to Github would probably be violating their terms or yours. Regardless, Microsoft would probably remove the repo if you contacted them to let them know you're the copyright holder, and the software license is incompatible with their terms. It remains to be seen if they have a way to then clean their training data of the influence. It would be the same situation if someone uploaded any other proprietary code.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  You shouldn't have to though, they have a responsibility all their own to check that they have the rights regarding someone else's copyright before they do what they want to do, rather than to do it anyway and then to wait for the rights holder to come to them. Copyright isn't 'opt in'.
  - pcthrowaway 4y ago
    I mean, if someone uploads a repo that contains proprietary code that also contains CI actions from the proprietary codebase, formatted the same as github actions, they're going to run those actions under the assumption that they are allowed to (even though they aren't, because it means they're running proprietary code). It's all automated. The person uploading the proprietary code would be the one infringing in that case.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Yes, but that's a different discussion. In this case the person does have the rights under the GPL to do what they do, but GitHub does not have an automatic right to assume that that gives them the right to enforce their ToS on the original copyright holder, which they effectively do.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dolmen 4y ago
    > Copyright isn't 'opt in'. Before 1989, copyright protection was opt-in in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      It's 2023.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> Are you claiming that people should not be allowed to clone other peoples' open source projects and put copies up on GitHub? If the github ToS supercedes the author's own licence, then I guess the uploader is effectively relicensing the code without the author's permission. That would mean the author has cause for action against the uploader, but not against github. I personally dislike git; I find it too complicated, because of features I don't need. Microsoft has always disliked FOSS anf GPL, and I suspect that Copilot is a deliberate effort to undermine it.

friend_and_foe 4y ago

If code with a license, say GPL, goes out somewhere else, by someone else (and therefore I don't have the right to change the license) and then I fork it, as per the license I keep the license and put it on github, and Github violates that license, aren't they violating the law? Don't they then have to remove that code? If that's the case then in that scenario the license supersedes the ToS right? Now imagine this: I write some code, license it, but don't publish it yet. It's licensed. Then I upload it to github. Does the license supersede the ToS? Doesn't github have to remove the code as a ToS violation? What if I show my roommate the licensed code first, does that count as publishing? The whole thing is absurd on it's face. All code is licensed before it ever goes on github. The license always supersedes the ToS. All licenses violate the ToS. All code on github should be removed by Microsoft for ToS violations or because Microsoft cannot abide their licenses. Their ToS is fucking illegal.

pcthrowaway 4y ago
> If code with a license, say GPL, goes out somewhere else, by someone else If the code is GPL licensed, you can't relicense it under a non-FOSS license like you're talking about > Don't they then have to remove that code? Yes, if code gets uploaded whose license is incompatible with Microsoft's terms, they probably do have to remove it. > Now imagine this: I write some code, license it, but don't publish it yet. It's licensed. Then I upload it to github. Does the license supersede the ToS? Doesn't github have to remove the code as a ToS violation Again, yes, they probably do, and they also probably have an obligation to clean their training data of it. However, if you're the copyright holder of the code and you agree to their ToS before uploading, they might make the case that you agreeing to their ToS does grant them the license to use it in training data.
- friend_and_foe 4y ago
  Not re-license. I upload with the same license I got it with, as per the license. So then Github is breaking the law a significant portion of the time then at the very least?
  - 4y ago

quickthrower2 4y ago

Microsoft cannot opt out of common law either