3 ms·
I think the main point of the argument is that you should not upload other people’s code to GitHub. Whether you upload your own code is your choice to make. Sam
by guube 1y ago
I think the main point of the argument is that you should not upload other people’s code to GitHub. Whether you upload your own code is your choice to make. Same goes with uploading to YouTube. You should not upload an entire film to YouTube if you do not have the right to distribute the film
- bonki 1y agoThe huge difference being that you do have the right to upload to GitHub if the code is released under an OSS license. If a project asks you nicely not to it would be equally nice to honor that, but there is no legal obligation to do so. Putting a copyrighted movie on Youtube to which you have no distribution rights is comparing apples to oranges and not the same thing.
- johnea 1y ago> you do have the right to upload to GitHub if the code is released under an OSS license This assumes that uploading to github does not involve granting other rights to M$ that would violate the original license, such as attribution or copyright.
- bonki 1y agoIANAL but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. If MS chooses to violate the original license that is between the original author and MS. You as the uploader do not and cannot grant rights to MS which you did not receive in the first place. You upload the code under its original license and if MS does not honor the license that is not on you. Not defending MS here in any way, btw, I do firmly believe in opt-out.