3 ms·
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 cl
by 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 agoI 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.