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

Git implemented in Rust

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 122 posts

Re: Git implemented in Rust

#21

Post by masklinn »

Zarel wrote: post #19
littlestymaar wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Implementing git in rust for fun and education! Also, not having a license file isn't a messy situation, that means “this project is protected under Berne Convention copyright“: the author is the only one holding every rights on the code and every use that is not explicitly allowed is a copyright infringement (unless it's fair use).

That sounds nice and all but it's wrong in two major ways. First: GitHub has a Terms of Service which was somewhat-recently amended to make this license grant explicit: https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#... "Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be view…

Pretty much all the TOS says is there's an implicit reproduction license (other users can see & fork the work) and possibly broadcast (the fork itself has the visibility of the original). Not adaptation, not use, not exploitation, …

And that license grant is solely through github as a service, it's unclear that a local clone is even permitted.

Re: Git implemented in Rust

#22

Post by masklinn »

EwanToo wrote: post #12
fxfan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

since you sound knowledgeable- if I go and without any contract "donate" some of my code to the repo- what becomes of the right to that code (the patch I contributed)?

You retain the copyright of the patch and can re-use it somewhere else under a different licence. And in turn, the project you submitted it to cannot re-licence that patched section of code (e.g. become either GPL licenced) without your permission, as it does not belong to them. (Edit for clarity)

One issue is under the Berne baseline, even given github's license grant[0], there is no license to make adaptation, arrangement or derivative work. So it's unclear that the patch would even be legal to start with, in the sense that it's either a modification / adaptation of the work or a derivative of it.

[0] https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#...

Re: Git implemented in Rust

#24

Post by littlestymaar »

slavik81 wrote: post #15
littlestymaar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, but since it's a learning project it's not obvious it's supposed to receive and accept code contribution anyway (so far it didn't receive any, the only two commits are fixes to typos in the README). That being said, it would be nice from the author to put the code under a permissive license to allow other people to play with his code too (at the moment, even forking it is a copyright infringement…).

> at the moment, even forking it is a copyright infringement Not that it changes much, but from the GitHub Terms of Service: > By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#...

Yes you're right, github forking is allowed. Pulling the code on your computer, changing it and contributing changes on your fork is still illegal though.

Re: Git implemented in Rust

#25

Post by littlestymaar »

adrianN wrote: post #11
littlestymaar wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Implementing git in rust for fun and education! Also, not having a license file isn't a messy situation, that means “this project is protected under Berne Convention copyright“: the author is the only one holding every rights on the code and every use that is not explicitly allowed is a copyright infringement (unless it's fair use).

Fair Use doesn't exist in many jurisdictions.

It isn't called that way and doesn't offer the same amount of protection everywhere, but the Berne convention itself includes copyright exceptions [1] that I included in the broad “fair use” phrase.

[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection...

Re: Git implemented in Rust

#26

Post by littlestymaar »

mnd999 wrote: post #14
littlestymaar wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Implementing git in rust for fun and education! Also, not having a license file isn't a messy situation, that means “this project is protected under Berne Convention copyright“: the author is the only one holding every rights on the code and every use that is not explicitly allowed is a copyright infringement (unless it's fair use).

Arguably by downloading it from github you’ve made an illegal copy.

It might depend on the legislation though. In France at least it would fall behind the «Exception de copie privée».

Re: Git implemented in Rust

#27

Post by blattimwind »

masklinn wrote: post #21
Zarel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds nice and all but it's wrong in two major ways. First: GitHub has a Terms of Service which was somewhat-recently amended to make this license grant explicit: https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#... "Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be view…

Pretty much all the TOS says is there's an implicit reproduction license (other users can see & fork the work) and possibly broadcast (the fork itself has the visibility of the original). Not adaptation, not use, not exploitation, … And that license grant is solely through github as a service, it's unclear that a local clone is even permitted.

> And that license grant is solely through github as a service, it's unclear that a local clone is even permitted.

That license grant has been added specifically to make GitHub itself waterproof (AIUI), so it makes sense it doesn't extend to user's rights. Look, but don't touch.

Re: Git implemented in Rust

#28

Post by littlestymaar »

masklinn wrote: post #22
EwanToo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You retain the copyright of the patch and can re-use it somewhere else under a different licence. And in turn, the project you submitted it to cannot re-licence that patched section of code (e.g. become either GPL licenced) without your permission, as it does not belong to them. (Edit for clarity)

One issue is under the Berne baseline, even given github's license grant[0], there is no license to make adaptation, arrangement or derivative work. So it's unclear that the patch would even be legal to start with, in the sense that it's either a modification / adaptation of the work or a derivative of it. [0] https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#...

Yes, the patch would be illegal, but the original author still wouldn't have all the rights on it. And it could also be illegal if the original author distributed the amended code elsewhere.

Edit: I edited my comment to say “could” instead of “would” because the original author could argue that the author of the patch implicitly gave him the right to redistribute his patch by contributing it to a public repository. I'm not sure it would stand in court, but I'd say it would have a non-null chance of success.

But If the author, who initially claimed the project was a learning project, decided to use it commercially, he clearly wouldn't be allowed to use the patch. (and again, it could be different if the patch author willingly contributed to a commercial product).

Post reply on HN