4 ms·

Part of microsoft's AI moat is about controlling competitions ability to use information on github. I would not be surprised if they start restricting git clon

Part of microsoft's AI moat is about controlling competitions ability to use information on github. I would not be surprised if they start restricting git clone next.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ljm 3y ago
Could you still call code open source (in line with the repo’s license) if the code is gated behind a login, or even a paid subscription? IIRC GitHub is already rate limited to slow down excessive cloning or API usage.
- VWWHFSfQ 3y ago
  Yes of course because neither of those things are relevant to the license.
- rcxdude 3y ago
  Yes. You can put a piece of code behind a paywall even. The only requirement under GPL and similar copyleft licenses is to make the code available to those you make the software available to (which can be only paying users, if you so wish), and to allow them to redistribute it under the same terms (which tends to mean that if you do make it pay-only, one of your users can just publish the code if they wish). Absolutely nothing in any commonly used open source license requires anyone to post something publicly and freely.
  - anthk 3y ago
    The user can ask for the code without paying any fees.
    - rcxdude 3y ago
      Yes (though the GPL does allow you to make the code available via post and charge a reasonable postage fee), if they're a user in the first place. You don't need to give the code to anyone you didn't distribute the software to.
      - anthk 3y ago
        Vvia postmail, but today with ubiquitous internet connections that way has no sense.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- dontupvoteme 3y ago
  API Usage yes as it requires a token, but git clone requires no auth and still seems to work behind datacenter IPs (e.g. mullvad) meaning that there is little stopping someone from mass cloning. It's a perverse reality but it seems that in order to keep some ecosystems open one has to take actions which are resource-wasteful (though I would argue in the larger picture it will save resources)
- wongarsu 3y ago
  I don't see a real issue with forcing you to make a free account and log in. After all it's also permissible to only offer source code in the form of shipping you a CD in return for postage fees. If people don't like how the code is provided they are free to upload it somewhere else. A paid subscription could be crossing the line. Or maybe it would be fine as long as no profits go to the entity that provided you with the binary. Hard to tell.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    It requires accepting additional terms, seems pretty likely to be a breach of the obligation to provide the sources (if it's the only way to obtain them).
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Yes. Open source doesn't require that you distribute the software to anyone. It only requires the the people you do distribute it to (if any) all have access to the source code under an open source license.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    If the binaries are publicly available anywhere the sources need to be as well (or at least be provided upon request, but I don't think many developers would like to deal with that)
beeboobaa 3y ago
> I would not be surprised if they start restricting git clone next. I would, considering the amount of CI systems this would break. Say goodbye to large parts of NPM, go package management, Jenkins scripts, etc.
- kkielhofner 3y ago
  Don’t forget Dockerfiles! That would be pure chaos.

Part of microsoft's AI moat is about controlling competitions ability to use information on github. I would not be surprised if they start restricting git clone next.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ljm 3y ago

Could you still call code open source (in line with the repo’s license) if the code is gated behind a login, or even a paid subscription? IIRC GitHub is already rate limited to slow down excessive cloning or API usage.

VWWHFSfQ 3y ago
Yes of course because neither of those things are relevant to the license.
rcxdude 3y ago
Yes. You can put a piece of code behind a paywall even. The only requirement under GPL and similar copyleft licenses is to make the code available to those you make the software available to (which can be only paying users, if you so wish), and to allow them to redistribute it under the same terms (which tends to mean that if you do make it pay-only, one of your users can just publish the code if they wish). Absolutely nothing in any commonly used open source license requires anyone to post something publicly and freely.
- anthk 3y ago
  The user can ask for the code without paying any fees.
  - rcxdude 3y ago
    Yes (though the GPL does allow you to make the code available via post and charge a reasonable postage fee), if they're a user in the first place. You don't need to give the code to anyone you didn't distribute the software to.
    - anthk 3y ago
      Vvia postmail, but today with ubiquitous internet connections that way has no sense.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
dontupvoteme 3y ago
API Usage yes as it requires a token, but git clone requires no auth and still seems to work behind datacenter IPs (e.g. mullvad) meaning that there is little stopping someone from mass cloning. It's a perverse reality but it seems that in order to keep some ecosystems open one has to take actions which are resource-wasteful (though I would argue in the larger picture it will save resources)
wongarsu 3y ago
I don't see a real issue with forcing you to make a free account and log in. After all it's also permissible to only offer source code in the form of shipping you a CD in return for postage fees. If people don't like how the code is provided they are free to upload it somewhere else. A paid subscription could be crossing the line. Or maybe it would be fine as long as no profits go to the entity that provided you with the binary. Hard to tell.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  It requires accepting additional terms, seems pretty likely to be a breach of the obligation to provide the sources (if it's the only way to obtain them).
josephcsible 3y ago
Yes. Open source doesn't require that you distribute the software to anyone. It only requires the the people you do distribute it to (if any) all have access to the source code under an open source license.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  If the binaries are publicly available anywhere the sources need to be as well (or at least be provided upon request, but I don't think many developers would like to deal with that)

beeboobaa 3y ago

> I would not be surprised if they start restricting git clone next. I would, considering the amount of CI systems this would break. Say goodbye to large parts of NPM, go package management, Jenkins scripts, etc.

kkielhofner 3y ago
Don’t forget Dockerfiles! That would be pure chaos.