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.
Copy: obviously, I want them to store my data and move them from HD to HD.
Distribute: This is what a distributed version control system is for.
Perform: Yes, please, format my .md files as specified.
Display: show me my code please.
Store: already covered.
Modify: this is dubious but if I upload a change, they need to modify it.
So I want to give them those rights if I want the service to work as desired, otherwise, it would not be bitbucket.
Yes, this article is absolutely horrible by coming to the opposite of the correct conclusion.
How could an attorney parsing the documents not notice the "in connection with operating the Hosting Service" stipulation?
Further, Bitbucket and Github are opposite in terms of the freedom you have to control your FREE repositories. Github forces your free repositories to be open to the public. Bitbucket allows you to keep some free repositories private.
The wording "in connection with" is specifically considered in the article. Also, here is the definition for "Hosted Services" (it's extremely broad):
1.2 What's Included in "Hosted Services". "Hosted Services" include any Atlassian online services products that End User orders, which can include "OnDemand" versions of many Atlassian Software products, the Bitbucket hosting service ("Bitbucket"), and other online services provided by Atlassian. "Hosted Services" always means the version of the Hosted Services as described in Atlassian's then-current product descriptions. End User's detailed rights to use Hosted Services are in Section 3 below.
Atlassian provide a lot of services which can be used in conjunction with one another. They probably use similar wording across their suite so that they are able to allow interaction between products etc.
I'm not sure where you got that quote from, but it's used exactly here: http://www.atlassian.com/end-user-agreement/
So yes, it's used across their suite, and doesn't seem overly broad in that case.
"In order to keep our prices low, we sold the contents of some private repositories" counts as 'in connection with operating the Hosting Service'. The author's problem is that the wording isn't particularly specific and can be used in a number of ways.
Also, they're give me a private repo for free if I ask for it, which is something GitHub doesn't offer, so a slight difference in ToS I would not find at all surprising. And this just sounds like a different legal template to me and not much more, they list specific things they need to do and then lump in the general "stuff we have to do with your stuff to make hosting work" clause, which is perfectly fine to me.
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?
Modify so they can change and update the code when you push revisions or use their web based editor. They need to distribute it so you or others you allow can clone it or view it online. They need to use your code so they can format .md files.
Do you truly think that Github does not do the same? Any service needs to modify your data on the backend for the good of the service, including copying it to multiple servers for backups and ensuring uptime during a server failure.
They do not need to distribute your code, i.e. making your repo public - this is part of their service and you grant them the right to do so when you make it public.
Do they need to use your source code - well not explicitly as such, but they do modify it when displaying it back to you - look at any source code page, it is modified source code.
This is all in the auspices of giving you a good service.
Furthermore, any fork network modifies your repo - it is all one repository. So in essence, you are modifying people's repos without them knowing.
Modify & Distribute: If someone wants to download a zip file of your repository, then you have give BitBucket the permission to modify the content (to produce the zip file) and distribute it (to send it to someone who wants it).
Use it: I'm not sure, maybe to do syntax highlighting, they need to use the source code with a syntax highlighting software.
Does content modification in legal speak really have the same strict meaning as we tend to imply? I just checked Instagram's Terms for example, and they have no mention of modification—though they obviously do compress and resize submitted images.
This makes me wonder if altering a sequence of bytes (for example, after conversion to a different format) is really a ‘modification’ if it still represents the same work.
Modify: things like the just-launched web editor will need to modify whatever data you originally uploaded. Distribute: git clone etc. Execute: scripts and so on, or even interpreting markup could be considered "using" a file in some contexts.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
"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."
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Maybe they want to store it in a compressed form” is not a clear answer, and subsequent unfair attack at the poster for me personally discredits the whole comment anyway. Having been a long-time Bitbucket user and welcoming their latest UI improvements, I begin wondering about these terms, too.
> 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.
You also said: "Rights they shouldn't have." without any qualification.
And you'll note that "seems" has multiple definitions, as well as multiple meanings when placed in context.
Regardless, even if we take "seem" at face value, it's not the issue. The issue is that they are asking for those rights, but you don't understand why they are asking for those rights. And your conclusion is that they shouldn't be asking for those rights. That's the problem. Your use of the word "seems" is meaningless. It doesn't matter.
Except that's not what I said at all. I said that I am concerned the terms seem overly broad. You haven't addressed this issue in any of your responses.
Like I say, if you are fine with sweeping rights to your material in legally binding contracts, more power to you I guess. I'm a little uncomfortable with them, I'm not a lawyer, though. Indeed, I don't know why they need those rights, neither do you. They are so broad, they could allow for a lot of undesirable things. I saw a lot of responses from others along the lines of "perhaps they need those rights for x and y", but actually nobody clearly knows the limits of the rights Atlassian grant themselves. If they chose to rewrite your source code or your history (hypothetical here...) then they could do that with legal impunity. Of course, it would be a PR disaster, and unlikely to happen, but I don't see how the points I raise aren't valid in any way.
If you can tell me, that's fine. If you don't have a counter argument, then I'm not going to engage any more. I don't feel like listening to your assumptions against my character - I don't know who you are, you don't know who I am, you don't know my motivations, and I don't know yours. I'm not sure I even really care, to be somewhat blunt.
Incidentally, I probably could have made myself more clear, what I was saying was that I felt that perhaps they were overreaching to grant themselves rights they probably never intended to have, but through their agreement they are so granted.
There was probably no need for you to use insulting language though. But if that's the way you want to conduct yourself, I suppose that's your prerogative.
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?
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.
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.