3 ms·

Um, last I heard, unless you pay them, Github requires you to make any code you upload open-source and publicly available. In many ways that's even more far-rea

by fpgeek 12y ago

Um, last I heard, unless you pay them, Github requires you to make any code you upload open-source and publicly available. In many ways that's even more far-reaching than what YouTube is asking, but that hasn't stopped programmers from flocking to them in droves. That does, however, suggest to me an option (c) that Google isn't offering: Musicians pay Google to run Content Id on their behalf to simplify the takedown process. While I'm sure there are some win-wins they're missing by not offering that (possibly including Zoë Keating), I really can't fault them for that. I expect the PR and legal complications would dwarf the storm that's already here.

icebraining 12y ago
Um, last I heard, unless you pay them, Github requires you to make any code you upload open-source and publicly available. Publicly available yes, open source no. You're free to choose whatever license you want: You're under no obligation to choose a license. It's your right not to include one with your code or project, but please be aware of the implications. Generally speaking, the absence of a license means that the default copyright laws apply. This means that you retain all rights to your source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.
- ldng 12y ago
  The requirement used to be open-source and publicly available It is now only publicly available
dagw 12y ago
All github require for their free users is that they're OK code is made viewable to the world. Nothing about github requires open source and you're free to chose any license you want.
aidos 12y ago
By your analogy, any code you put on bitbucket would also have to be uploaded to github at the same time.
- nothrabannosir 12y ago
  Yeah that was not a good comparison; the problem here is that the contract applies to all music released by the artist for 5 years, not just what is uploaded to Youtube. This is vastly, vastly more restrictive than Github. Not even close. If Github did this, they would lose everyone overnight.

by fpgeek 12y ago

icebraining 12y ago

Um, last I heard, unless you pay them, Github requires you to make any code you upload open-source and publicly available. Publicly available yes, open source no. You're free to choose whatever license you want: You're under no obligation to choose a license. It's your right not to include one with your code or project, but please be aware of the implications. Generally speaking, the absence of a license means that the default copyright laws apply. This means that you retain all rights to your source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.

ldng 12y ago
The requirement used to be open-source and publicly available It is now only publicly available

dagw 12y ago

All github require for their free users is that they're OK code is made viewable to the world. Nothing about github requires open source and you're free to chose any license you want.

aidos 12y ago

By your analogy, any code you put on bitbucket would also have to be uploaded to github at the same time.

nothrabannosir 12y ago
Yeah that was not a good comparison; the problem here is that the contract applies to all music released by the artist for 5 years, not just what is uploaded to Youtube. This is vastly, vastly more restrictive than Github. Not even close. If Github did this, they would lose everyone overnight.