Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Are GitHub pull-requests governed by the original repository license?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: Ask HN: Are GitHub pull-requests governed by the original repository license?

#11

Post by zrail »

ageitgey wrote: post #4

In the US, you automatically have copyright over code you create yourself (assuming there's 'authorship' to make it something deserving of copyright). Sending someone a PR doesn't mean you lose your copyright. You end up in a murky area where the norms of OSS are that your contribution is now part of the package, but they don't have clear ownership over the copyright of all the code in the repo. This is exactly why m…

Not just big companies. I have CLA assistant set up on all of my public repos.

Re: Ask HN: Are GitHub pull-requests governed by the original repository license?

#14

Post by ensignavenger »

rectang wrote: post #3

> So, Question 1: are their contributions automatically licensed under the same MIT license as the original repository? (Note that their fork, which I'm being asked to merge, contains the identical license file.) Yes — that is the common understanding, a foundation upon which vast amounts of collaborative Open Source projects are built. > Question 2: have they (almost certainly inadvertently) assigned copyright over…

The Unlicense doesn't even resolve the questions OP has any differently than the MIT license or any other standard Open Source license would.

What I usually do for the copyright attribution on my own projects is "Copyright My Name and Contributors". That makes it clearer that there may be contributions from others merged into the code and I'm not claiming copyright over everything.

Re: Ask HN: Are GitHub pull-requests governed by the original repository license?

#15

Post by pcthrowaway »

Other people have already answered your questions, and I agree with them:

(1): probably, but not necessarily; they could choose a different license for their contributions, though it would be unlikely to get merged

(2): no, they still have copyright on their changes unless they reassign it

But if the repo was GPL then their contributions would automatically be GPL also

Re: Ask HN: Are GitHub pull-requests governed by the original repository license?

#16

Post by phkahler »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #15

Other people have already answered your questions, and I agree with them: (1): probably, but not necessarily; they could choose a different license for their contributions, though it would be unlikely to get merged (2): no, they still have copyright on their changes unless they reassign it But if the repo was GPL then their contributions would automatically be GPL also

>> But if the repo was GPL then their contributions would automatically be GPL also

Because the GPL requires all (conveyed) derivative works to be GPL licensed. If they intended it to be anything else they would be in violation of the GPL.

Re: Ask HN: Are GitHub pull-requests governed by the original repository license?

#17

Post by NoGravitas »

rectang wrote: post #3

> So, Question 1: are their contributions automatically licensed under the same MIT license as the original repository? (Note that their fork, which I'm being asked to merge, contains the identical license file.) Yes — that is the common understanding, a foundation upon which vast amounts of collaborative Open Source projects are built. > Question 2: have they (almost certainly inadvertently) assigned copyright over…

> The original JSON license is the crayon license whose flaws are easiest to understand. It contains the phrase "shall be used for Good, not Evil", which begs the question "who decides what's evil?" and opens up any user to a potential lawsuit.

I personally like the FOAF license, which is like the original JSON license, but specifies that "what's evil" is determined by the originator of the project.

Re: Ask HN: Are GitHub pull-requests governed by the original repository license?

#18

Post by Anon1096 »

NoGravitas wrote: post #17
rectang wrote: post #3

> So, Question 1: are their contributions automatically licensed under the same MIT license as the original repository? (Note that their fork, which I'm being asked to merge, contains the identical license file.) Yes — that is the common understanding, a foundation upon which vast amounts of collaborative Open Source projects are built. > Question 2: have they (almost certainly inadvertently) assigned copyright over…

> The original JSON license is the crayon license whose flaws are easiest to understand. It contains the phrase "shall be used for Good, not Evil", which begs the question "who decides what's evil?" and opens up any user to a potential lawsuit. I personally like the FOAF license, which is like the original JSON license, but specifies that "what's evil" is determined by the originator of the project.

I would not consider that an open source license, and it's almost no different than a proprietary license.

Re: Ask HN: Are GitHub pull-requests governed by the original repository license?

#19

Post by ta988 »

NoGravitas wrote: post #17
rectang wrote: post #3

> So, Question 1: are their contributions automatically licensed under the same MIT license as the original repository? (Note that their fork, which I'm being asked to merge, contains the identical license file.) Yes — that is the common understanding, a foundation upon which vast amounts of collaborative Open Source projects are built. > Question 2: have they (almost certainly inadvertently) assigned copyright over…

> The original JSON license is the crayon license whose flaws are easiest to understand. It contains the phrase "shall be used for Good, not Evil", which begs the question "who decides what's evil?" and opens up any user to a potential lawsuit. I personally like the FOAF license, which is like the original JSON license, but specifies that "what's evil" is determined by the originator of the project.

This opens the door for the originator to change their mind. So pretty much the opposite of a legal document where it is tried to make things unambiguous (of course there are exceptions and failures to do that)

Re: Ask HN: Are GitHub pull-requests governed by the original repository license?

#20

Post by rectang »

Anon1096 wrote: post #18
NoGravitas wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The original JSON license is the crayon license whose flaws are easiest to understand. It contains the phrase "shall be used for Good, not Evil", which begs the question "who decides what's evil?" and opens up any user to a potential lawsuit. I personally like the FOAF license, which is like the original JSON license, but specifies that "what's evil" is determined by the originator of the project.

I would not consider that an open source license, and it's almost no different than a proprietary license.

Agreed. Specifically, that's not compatible with the Open Source Definition section 6.

https://opensource.org/osd

> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Post reply on HN