4 ms·
This part of the ToS explicitly does grant such a license to other GitHub users. > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each
by trehalose 2y ago
This part of the ToS explicitly does grant such a license to other GitHub users.
> If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking).
- efilife 2y agoIt would seem that Github's TOS is superior to their license. They could have chosen other way to host their code
- IgorPartola 2y agoAs written, this says that you can fork a repo but can’t then clone it and work on it on your own machine. Isn’t software licensing fun?
- skeaker 2y agoInteresting. I guess you could just stick to the Github web editor to stay compliant? Really a terrible way to go about things though
- IgorPartola 2y agoYou also can’t run the code.
- bee_rider 2y agoHmm, it says not to distribute the source or the binary. What about WASM or LLVM IR?
- IgorPartola 2y agoIf GH provides they capability I suppose.
- trehalose 2y agoI was thinking that. The language seems not quite clear, at least to a non-lawyer like me: > you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking) So, on GitHub, we can "use", "perform", and "reproduce". Does editing/modifying fall under any of those verbs?
- SixtyHurtz 2y agoCloning is part of GitHub's functionality, so therefore we can clone it but can only commit those changes back to GH. We are permitted to do anything that is part of GH's functionality.