3 ms·

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, som

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.

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.