3 ms·

> I do not regard the LICENSE.txt in your Github project as a serious abrogation of ethics. It inspires more of a shallow sigh ... Note: Not having a LICENSE.t

> I do not regard the LICENSE.txt in your Github project as a serious abrogation of ethics. It inspires more of a shallow sigh ... Note: Not having a LICENSE.txt does not make Github projects public domain. They are simply unlicensed. There are many projects which are unlicensed on Github. File an issue for each one you find!

arto 13y ago
Properly, projects lacking licensing information are known as "license-free software": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software http://ar.to/2010/12/licensing-and-unlicensing http://ar.to/2010/12/licensing-and-unlicensing
delinka 13y ago
The general population of devs seem to have this misunderstanding. Since many just Do Their Jobs and don't release personal projects (and thus feel they have no immediate need to understand copyright and licensing), it's understandable. I'm now curious how many of these intersect with the crowd that thinks when I've released my own code under the GPL, that I must never make use of that code (that I own the rights to) in some proprietary project.
jt2190 13y ago
> Not having a LICENSE.txt does not make Github projects > public domain. +1. From the U.S. Copyright Office FAQ: > Do I have to register with your office to be protected? > > No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright > exists from the moment the work is created. You will > have to register, however, if you wish to bring a > lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work... [1] (Many other countries have similar rules.) This is why open source projects often require a "contributor agreement" when submitting patches. [1] http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
- rmc 13y ago
  This is why open source projects often require a "contributor agreement" when submitting patches. Often "contributor agreements" are only desired by (large) projects so that the large project owns the copyright on your contributions. This will allow them to change the licence at a later date (if they want). Without copyright assignment to them, they have a much harder time changing licence. There are some cases where relicencing is good (OpenStreetMap had to change it's licence, and had to delete old contributions), and sometimes when it's bad.
rmc 13y ago
Isn't the default "all rights reserved"? (Note: GitHub ToS says if you put copyright code on it, then you are by default allowing others to fork & download it, so the default licence is looser than the legal default)
- tjaerv 13y ago
  Nice catch about GitHub's Terms of Service. From https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service: > ...by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow > others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be > viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your > repositories.
- zeckalpha 13y ago
  Sure but I see many repositories (and gists) with interesting things, with comments and other indicators saying thanks for the code, but with no license. This means people are taking things anyway, which the authors seem okay with. This is not okay, safe, stable, or sustainable.

arto 13y ago

Properly, projects lacking licensing information are known as "license-free software": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software http://ar.to/2010/12/licensing-and-unlicensing http://ar.to/2010/12/licensing-and-unlicensing

delinka 13y ago

The general population of devs seem to have this misunderstanding. Since many just Do Their Jobs and don't release personal projects (and thus feel they have no immediate need to understand copyright and licensing), it's understandable. I'm now curious how many of these intersect with the crowd that thinks when I've released my own code under the GPL, that I must never make use of that code (that I own the rights to) in some proprietary project.

jt2190 13y ago

> Not having a LICENSE.txt does not make Github projects > public domain. +1. From the U.S. Copyright Office FAQ: > Do I have to register with your office to be protected? > > No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright > exists from the moment the work is created. You will > have to register, however, if you wish to bring a > lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work... [1] (Many other countries have similar rules.) This is why open source projects often require a "contributor agreement" when submitting patches. [1] http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

rmc 13y ago
This is why open source projects often require a "contributor agreement" when submitting patches. Often "contributor agreements" are only desired by (large) projects so that the large project owns the copyright on your contributions. This will allow them to change the licence at a later date (if they want). Without copyright assignment to them, they have a much harder time changing licence. There are some cases where relicencing is good (OpenStreetMap had to change it's licence, and had to delete old contributions), and sometimes when it's bad.

rmc 13y ago

Isn't the default "all rights reserved"? (Note: GitHub ToS says if you put copyright code on it, then you are by default allowing others to fork & download it, so the default licence is looser than the legal default)

tjaerv 13y ago
Nice catch about GitHub's Terms of Service. From https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service: > ...by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow > others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be > viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your > repositories.
zeckalpha 13y ago
Sure but I see many repositories (and gists) with interesting things, with comments and other indicators saying thanks for the code, but with no license. This means people are taking things anyway, which the authors seem okay with. This is not okay, safe, stable, or sustainable.