4 ms·

I agree however taking random pieces of a long agreement in isolation is not how you read terms of services. The section you highlight is NOT, for example, the

I agree however taking random pieces of a long agreement in isolation is not how you read terms of services. The section you highlight is NOT, for example, the one that talks about what legal rights you give Github regarding your code. Construing it as such and the extrapolating from that is taking a piece of text way out of context.

dijit 3y ago
The section cited is the most prominent section in the terms of service regarding private repositories[0] Everything else in that section relates to personnel (which is not the concern of the commenters here), what happens if you upload copyrighted material and codes of conduct. Also, taking segments of the TOS is exactly what will happen in a court of law, unless there is another section that invalidates this section, this fragment will be argued as consent. Additionally; the context of that section is very clear otherwise. Sorry. The way ToS will be argued is: there are many references to processing information and nothing that explicitly prohibits or cannot be reasonably inferred to inhibit automatic processing, in fact there are many places where they make reference to "automatic processing for services"; You can take that to mean that it's just their SAST scanners, they can take it to mean training of an AI model, there's no distinction legally here. [0]: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#e-private-repositories https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
- marcinzm 3y ago
  You mean like the earlier section that explicitly says "License Grant to Us" which the court would somehow amazingly ignore reading according to you? Because clearly the exact legal rights you give Github to use your work is not relevant to a discussion on how Github is legally allowed to use your work.
  - dijit 3y ago
    I can tell you're a bit defensive about this, so let me be clear as possible: talk to a lawyer. I am not a lawyer myself, though I consult with Swiss/German lawyers quite often regarding licensing because it is a large part of my role. The fragment I mentioned is the beginning of section "E”; this document is using letters as the top level section separator, so using a different letter from the prior is taken as an intentional separation for the purposes of a legal document, what you are referring to is from section "D"; IE they are in a different context from each other entirely. Even then, you do not need to have a license to automatically process source code, as per the text of this ToS. There are more than a few points where they talk about what they have the rights to read, and there is only one point (which is legally required to be there, fwiw) which states they can't release your source code as if it's theirs. If you read the copilot terms of service, they are not granting license to use the suggestions. A very pessimistic take is that they are quite legally protected from using source code derived from these repositories, even if there wasn't the muddy discussion about training data and derivation.

dijit 3y ago

The section cited is the most prominent section in the terms of service regarding private repositories[0] Everything else in that section relates to personnel (which is not the concern of the commenters here), what happens if you upload copyrighted material and codes of conduct. Also, taking segments of the TOS is exactly what will happen in a court of law, unless there is another section that invalidates this section, this fragment will be argued as consent. Additionally; the context of that section is very clear otherwise. Sorry. The way ToS will be argued is: there are many references to processing information and nothing that explicitly prohibits or cannot be reasonably inferred to inhibit automatic processing, in fact there are many places where they make reference to "automatic processing for services"; You can take that to mean that it's just their SAST scanners, they can take it to mean training of an AI model, there's no distinction legally here. [0]: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#e-private-repositories https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

marcinzm 3y ago
You mean like the earlier section that explicitly says "License Grant to Us" which the court would somehow amazingly ignore reading according to you? Because clearly the exact legal rights you give Github to use your work is not relevant to a discussion on how Github is legally allowed to use your work.
- dijit 3y ago
  I can tell you're a bit defensive about this, so let me be clear as possible: talk to a lawyer. I am not a lawyer myself, though I consult with Swiss/German lawyers quite often regarding licensing because it is a large part of my role. The fragment I mentioned is the beginning of section "E”; this document is using letters as the top level section separator, so using a different letter from the prior is taken as an intentional separation for the purposes of a legal document, what you are referring to is from section "D"; IE they are in a different context from each other entirely. Even then, you do not need to have a license to automatically process source code, as per the text of this ToS. There are more than a few points where they talk about what they have the rights to read, and there is only one point (which is legally required to be there, fwiw) which states they can't release your source code as if it's theirs. If you read the copilot terms of service, they are not granting license to use the suggestions. A very pessimistic take is that they are quite legally protected from using source code derived from these repositories, even if there wasn't the muddy discussion about training data and derivation.