
Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket - Maximal
http://www.techlawyer.com.au/uncategorized/licenses-over-data-a-case-study-with-github-v-bitbucket/
======
casca
IANAL but this doesn't seem unreasonable. The exact clause is:

 __End User hereby grants Atlassian a non-exclusive license to copy,
distribute, perform, display, store, modify, and otherwise use End User Data
in connection with operating the Hosted Services. __

For me, the key is "in connection with operating the Hosting Service". They
will need to do things with your data as they move it between servers and
storage and make it available to you. If you want it displayed publicly then
you need to have given them a license to do so.

~~~
chris_wot
Why do they need to modify the data? And why do they need to distribute it
(assuming this is different from copying), and for that matter why do they
need to _use_ your source code?

~~~
anu_gupta
> Why do they need to modify the data?

Maybe they want to store it in a compressed form

> distribute it

Making the code available for you or your collaborators is distributing it.
How else would they do this?

Why not just email them with your concerns, if you actually really have some,
and aren't just playing to the peanut gallery for karma.

~~~
chris_wot
_Why not just email them with your concerns, if you actually really have some,
and aren 't just playing to the peanut gallery for karma._

Ascribing motivations to my post is illogical, not to mention unfair. I have
some genuine concerns, I posted them above.

Luckily, my account is with GitHub, not with BitBucket.

P.S. see my reply here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5888670](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5888670)

------
davidjgraph
In my experience, the vast majority of developers completely
ignore/misunderstand licensing most/all of the time.

The common excuse is that the intent by publishing source code online is that
you clearly are allowing everybody to use it freely as they wish. I have no
doubt the licenses on Bitbucket are not followed correctly more often than
not.

Atlassian, if you've followed them, have always been a very transparent,
developer-centric company, the behaviour of neither the founders, nor the
company has ever suggested they are in the slightest bit interested in being
arseholes in the manner being suggested here.

Yet somehow there's a switch from 'intent' to being licensing experts when it
suits.

~~~
jey
The problem is that control of the company could be transferred to other
actors, in which case the original founders' "intent" becomes irrelevant. So
the best thing to do is to encode the intended terms explicitly in the
contract.

~~~
davidjgraph
In most cases there's some clause saying "we can pretty much do anything to
these terms, as long as we give you 30 days notice". They can be as explicit
as they like, the next company can just change them.

It's not that I disagree with you, I'm just calling out what I view as
"selective license goggles", which I find particularly ironic given the nature
of the service in question.

------
ernesth
From github's Terms of service : "You understand that the technical processing
and transmission of the Service, including your Content, may be transfered
unencrypted and involve (a) transmissions over various networks; and (b)
changes to conform and adapt to technical requirements of connecting networks
or devices."

In other words, the end user grants github a license to copy, distribute,
store, modify End User Data (without encryption even if the user marked this
data private).

------
btipling
> End User hereby grants Atlassian a non-exclusive license

The title of this post needs to be changed to reflect the title of the post.
Right now it's disingenuous link bait.

------
mpchlets
At Assembla, a project management tool that incorporates a repository service
like github or bitbucket, we have a similar TOS as github:

"1\. Assembla claims no copyright or other ownership rights in the Content you
upload to the Service. 2\. By uploading or otherwise providing Content to
Assembla.com, You grant to Assembla a non-exclusive, royalty-free, paid-up
right and license to use, reproduce, display and distribute such Content on
Assembla.com in connection Assembla's provision of the Services to such
persons as you may authorize. 3\. You hereby represent and warrant that you
have all intellectual property and other rights necessary concerning any
Content posted by You on Assembla.com."
[https://www.assembla.com/terms_of_service](https://www.assembla.com/terms_of_service)

We do not want your data for our personal or corporate uses, we only want to
display/reproduce/use your data with your expressed permission, i.e. you make
your data public - the same as github.

The theory we have at Assembla is that the data is yours, always yours. We
will never keep your data from you and we will never claim ownership over it.

We explicitly state that we do not own your IP because in today's world so
many services are taking ownership over what you create. We feel it important
to tell you right out that we do not claim ownership because if we do not, you
will not know our stance.

Our stance is that we want you to feel comfortable using our service for both
private and public projects for your data. We want you to be successful with a
nice tool, we do not want to own your data.

~~~
Uchikoma
You got me confused, your

"You grant to Assembla a non-exclusive, royalty-free, paid-up right and
license to use, reproduce, display and distribute such Content on Assembla.com
in connection Assembla's provision of the Services to such persons as you may
authorize"

sounds much more like Atlassian,

"End User hereby grants Atlassian a non-exclusive license to copy, distribute,
perform, display, store, modify, and otherwise use End User Data in connection
with operating the Hosted Services."

not at all like the Github TOS.

~~~
mpchlets
I think you are misunderstanding the wording: "as you may authorize" \- that
bit is about you making it public, and only about you making it public -
nothing else. You authorize it to be made public, github says the same as "By
setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to
view and fork your repositories"

github is just not using lawyer speak, which is definitely cooler.

~~~
Uchikoma
The point of the post was, you give Atlassian a license, you don't give Github
one. In this regard your TOS is the same as the Atlassian one.

~~~
mpchlets
"However, 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."

You are granting permission of ownership through forking to anyone - including
github.

------
magoon
A service does need the right to store, process and display your data, and if
their service makes use of third-parties then they need to assert the right to
work with third parties.

That said, it would be comforting if Atlassian clarified this to make it clear
they have zero claims on anybody's IP.

------
brudgers
_" courts have ruled that “in connection with” covers indirect connection as
well as direct connection."_

Which courts?

The question matters because while Github is located in San Francisco,
Atlassian is an Australian company.

------
wes-exp
It's github's TOS that seems flawed to me, not Atlassian's. Maybe some jerk-
off will sue Github because it's making "copies" of copyrighted coded without
a license. I am more worried about that outcome than Atlassian going
tyrannical.

------
paul_f
Why does any service need to assertively state they don't own your IP? They
don't own your IP. And can't claim it. Whether they mention it or not doesn't
change that fact.

~~~
chris_wot
But they do seem to say they have many rights to your code. Rights they
shouldn't have.

~~~
jasonlotito
Rights they need to have if they want to host your code. You asked in another
comment why they needed certain rights, and now I see you commenting here as
if you know what you are talking about.

You are admit you are ignorant of the needs, but you go around commenting as
if you have a clue.

Github needs the same rights as bitbucket to do what it does.

~~~
chris_wot
Sir, your ad hominem argument is a fallacy that proves nothing, and impresses
no one.

If you want to give me an actual reason, rather than making your argument
about my person, feel free. You have only asserted that they need the rights,
but you fail to say why. Please feel free to chime in with facts and reasoning
at some point, I am interested in what you have to say.

 _You are admit you are ignorant of the needs, but you go around commenting as
if you have a clue._

You'll notice I said "seems". That's an English word with connotations of
uncertainty and doubt, do try to look it up in a dictionary some time.

~~~
mcintyre1994
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5888471](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5888471)

Have you read this reply to your previous post yet? I think that's what was
being referred to, and it clearly answers the issue bought up there and again
here.

~~~
chris_wot
I read it after I posted the comment. Like I mention above, I was uncertain
about the terms. It seemed to me that the terms are overly broad. For
instance, he says " _maybe_ they want to compress the data". Well, then if
that's the case, write that. But currently it gives them the rights to modify
source code. What happens if there is an implementation of patented code they
don't like in a private repo? The current terms allow them to modify the data
to remove that code.

Sure, probably won't happen, but what if they get taken over by another
company. How do I know they won't do that?

He then mentions distribution in order to distribute to others specifically if
you elect to do so. But if I choose not to, the wording currently allows them
to distribute no matter what my wishes are.

Again, not something they are likely to do. But with legal documents, surely
it's a good idea not to give overarching rights that you never intended in the
legal document?

~~~
crusso
At some point, you should realize that conceding an argument makes you look a
lot more mature and reasonable than continuing to twist and wiggle endlessly
to make sure that people see that you're correct.

~~~
chris_wot
Sure showed me, huh?

Seriously though, I said that my concern is that the terms seem overly broad.
I gave some specific examples. Are you saying they are invalid? What is twisty
about expressing my genuine concerns?

Frankly, if you believe the terms aren't overly broad, more power to you. I'm
not sure I like the terms, luckily for me IMO I chose GitHub for unrelated
reasons. Seems to me their license is a better fit for my comfort level.

~~~
chris_wot
Oh bravo. Downvoted me instead of engaging.

~~~
jasonlotito
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Down voting someone that
replied to you or that you replied to doesn't count. That being said, this
comment of yours right here is the exact type of comment that should get down
voted. It's meaningless and pointless. It's childish, and offers nothing to
the conversation. I cannot down vote it precisely because I'm replying.

Anyways, it's the type of commentary that isn't welcome here.

~~~
chris_wot
I've been on this site as long as you have, Jason. I know the rules, so will
bow out gracefully at this point except to say that I was responding to the
valueless comment "you should quit while you are ahead", which assumed I was
trying to "win" an argument when all I have been doing is stating my concern
that the agreement terms seem overly broad.

The commenter didn't feel any need to address this actual point, not sure how
it contributed to the discussion in any way. I was quite annoyed I got
downvoted, because I am genuinely interested in seeing an actual response to
this particular concern. Also, it felt like bullying and groupthink.

Good day to you all :-)

~~~
jasonlotito
I home in on people talking about "down votes" and complaining about receiving
them. It's a pet-peeve of mine here. I've occasionally done it as well. I
deserve to get down voted for it.

However long people have been on here, it's always good to be reminded that
even if we know the rules, we sometimes break them.

Just because someone else is breaking the rules shouldn't mean we let
ourselves do the same.

------
mnutt
I'd be surprised if Atlassian inserted that phrase out of malice. I've been
told by lawyers more than once that "it's necessary to prevent someone from
suing you for doing exactly what they asked you to do". (display content they
uploaded)

The lawyers also use it for covering all their bases. By uploading, do you
automatically give them the right to feature your repo on their homepage? Or
is that advertising?

------
dakimov
C'mon, Atlassian is not evil, they just want to avoid being sued.

I think that end-user agreements must be prohibited altogether, because it is
a mean of discrimination. Either you provide a public service and then your
relationships with users are guided by the state law, or you sign an exclusive
contract out of public service. The main obstacle to that is the retarded US
law system.

