
Removing everything from GitHub - 0x0
http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/removing_everything_from_github/
======
libertymcateer
Software lawyer here.

Is this the offending language?

>If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each
User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to access your Content
through the GitHub Service, and to use, display and perform your Content, and
to reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's
functionality. You may grant further rights if you adopt a license.

Is the theory here that this negates FOSS licenses, over-riding copyleft terms
with permissive terms?

Based on my reading, it comes down to whether your read the "use, display and
perform" as conjunct or disjoint with "solely on Github." If it is conjunct,
it should not be a problem. If it is disjoint... yeah, that may be a problem.

To be explicitly clear, I am a software lawyer and I write a whole hell of a
lot of licenses that have to play well with FOSS licenses. I do this for a
living.

I am going to have to think this over pretty hard.

Edit: I just tweeted at them:
[https://twitter.com/LibertyMcateer/status/837048904583626752](https://twitter.com/LibertyMcateer/status/837048904583626752)

I'll post more if I hear anything.

Edit edit: read this response:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933)

I am persuaded. The pertinent language, for "use, display and perform" is
pretty limited. Typically, copyleft licenses are hinged on the distribution of
code - which is basically the same thing as reproduction in the digital world.
A general license to use, display and perform code may play well with copyleft
licenses as a result.

Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer. I am not github's lawyer. These statements
are my own, not my firm's and I have not performed a full analysis of this
language or GitHub's license. If you need a legal opinion, you should retain a
lawyer.

~~~
kakwa_
My impression is that the intent is to mitigate the possible legal issues
raised by the numerous repositories without license.

It seems a little far fetch, but I imagine that accessing and reading content
subject to copyrights can be punished legally in some (many?) countries, even
if the content is de facto public.

(A book published by accident on an open http server is not that different).

Also, GitHub having a proeminent "fork" button can be seen as an invitation to
violate copyrights, making the service somewhat responsible.

However, I'm certainly not a lawyer and I can't determine accurately the
implication of this paragraph (intentional or accidental).

~~~
forgotpwtomain
> Also, GitHub having a proeminent "fork" button can be seen as an invitation
> to violate copyrights, making the service somewhat responsible.

What about simply not having a visible 'fork' button for Repository's without
a license? IANAL but a supposed automated license grant to Github doesn't
sound like very convincing legal rights for use of software (even if the
forking itself is legal)?

>> Is the theory here that this negates FOSS licenses, over-riding copyleft
terms with permissive terms?

I was under the impression that Copy-Left licenses weren't "over-ridable" at
all. That is the original author of the content could grant Github a parallel
license but most e.g. GPLed projects have multiple contributors and any grant
to Github in violation of their CLA's wouldn't stand. Could you correct if and
where this is incorrect?

------
optimuspaul
I'm confused. I read that TOS and I don't see anything that does anything like
this post describes. I think this may be FUD.

------
_Marak_
Can someone please explain what is going on here?

I have an AGPL project on Github with close to 1,000 stars, multiple
contributors, and a CLA.

Is my project affected by this? Does this change somehow endanger the copyleft
clause of our AGPL license?

~~~
lolc
The way I understood it: While you may licence your work to Github according
to their terms, you can't licence other people's work to Github under a
different licence than how it was licenced to you. The language of copyleft
licences is very strict in this regard.

Github certainly didn't mean their terms to be read this way. They included
"as required for the service" in all relevant places. What I don't understand
is why they want the uploader to grant them a specific licence, instead of a
more lenient "the content you upload must be licenced in a way that allows us
to ..."

Edit: I think that nobody except possibly Github the company could take
advantage of this "additional" licences. The biggest risk I see is that an
AGPL contributor sees their licence violated when you upload their
contribution to Github. So you're in a legal gray area if you still do it. Not
something you want to be in but not going to be a problem in most cases.

It looks like Github tried to protect themselves from some pathologic cases
and have created headaches for everybody else. The way I see it they're trying
to push some risks on their users.

------
slig
More discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933)

------
ajarmst
Reserving judgement until I see an analysis from someone familiar with the
pertinent law, and qualified to comment (i.e. "What does Eben Moglen think?").
The "analysis" linked to is a dead link (maybe it got HNed).

~~~
loeg
[http://web.archive.org/web/20170301173905/https://www.mirbsd...](http://web.archive.org/web/20170301173905/https://www.mirbsd.org/permalinks/wlog-10_e20170301-tg.htm)

------
hoodoof
Overreaction. Of course Github doesn't want this sort of thing. Just be
patient.

------
brian-armstrong
This raises an interesting point. Suppose you really can be 'tainted' by
viewing GPL or other copyleft code. Should the search function require you to
opt in to showing snippets from copylefted codebases (or codebases without any
licenses)? It seems like anything less is asking for trouble.

~~~
TAForObvReasons
You can attack open source projects by posting a project with a draconian
license, duplicate existing code from an open source project and use git
features to backdate the commit, then go after authors who "copied" the
features.

~~~
AstralStorm
And should you lose, face a criminal counter suit. (False testimony and
potentially forgery. Depending on the licence, also breach thereof in a civil
suit.) Trading a civil suit for criminal one is a Bad Idea.

You generally will have to produce evidence of incremental development at
least, if not more.

Not A Lawyer.

------
dosgonlogs
If they are indeed overreacting it still gives me comfort how quickly people
respond with potential "fixes" to issues even if they are not an issue in the
end.

