Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use
1–10 of 249 posts
Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use
#2Quite an unusual, but effective, way to mark something as a proof of concept that's dangerous to use:
From [1]: "This is as unsafe as it sounds and I don't recommend anyone do it outside of a testing environment."
[1]: https://github.com/bouk/monkey#i-thought-that-monkeypatching...
Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use
#3So there is no grant of copyright to distribute copies of the dependency, but what about useyright? The dependant project just uses the the dependency to run a test. Supposing it didn't distribute it as part of the release, is that still allowable?
Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use
#4License reads:
> "Copyright Bouke van der Bijl
I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it.
I’m not interested in changing this license. Please don’t ask. "
Used by counter on GitHub is at 464. The way it's worded would imply that they are all violating the license? How can this be enforced for inconsequential small pet projects? Is this really something to worry about, particularly with what (seems to me) to be a sort-of spurious license?
Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use
#5So there is no grant of copyright to distribute copies of the dependency, but what about useyright? The dependant project just uses the the dependency to run a test. Supposing it didn't distribute it as part of the release, is that still allowable?
The conflicting license states
>I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it.
So no use rights either.
Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use
#6GitHub terms of service [1]:
"If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking)."
I think these override it?
[1] https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...
Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use
#7I am not a lawyer... There may be an argument here that
1. GitHub has a valid license to distribute it (as a result of their TOS)
2. Running the downloaded code is not copyright infringement (or not obviously so, and hasn't been established as so in any court that I am aware of)
3. Using the APIs is not copyright infringement (see Oracle v Google, if that was fair use this almost certainly is)
Thus no copyright infringement has occurred.
Still, keeping this in the codebase is at best boobytrapping your code to create accidental future instances of copyright infringement, and it's an interesting case of people not checking licenses (since it's pretty clear they didn't realize this in advance).
Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use
#8GitHub terms of service [1]: "If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking)." I think these override it? [1] https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-p…
No it does not. This statement is exclusively for the fact that GitHub and a reader is not liable for showing/reading your copyrighted code.
The only weak spot is GitHub Actions/Code spaces/etc for dev tools I guess. Because that falls under "GitHub service" and is a functionality of it.
Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use
#9License reads: > "Copyright Bouke van der Bijl I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it. I’m not interested in changing this license. Please don’t ask. " Used by counter on GitHub is at 464. The way it's worded would imply that they are all violating the license? How can this be enforced for inconsequential small pet projects? Is this really something to worry about, particularl…
Yes. You take something you do not own (even down the tree). You have to check if you are allowed to. It does not matter if it is a small pet project or the Linux Kernel.
Sure you can ignore him and wait for him to lawyer up and make your life miserable. Considering that IT specialists which have capacity to contribute to open source are typically not poor or have idealogical interests, I would not take the bets.
Respect the wishes of the people you take code from.
License checking is like code coverage. If you are a professional you take care of it.
Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use
#10I am not a lawyer... There may be an argument here that 1. GitHub has a valid license to distribute it (as a result of their TOS) 2. Running the downloaded code is not copyright infringement (or not obviously so, and hasn't been established as so in any court that I am aware of) 3. Using the APIs is not copyright infringement (see Oracle v Google, if that was fair use this almost certainly is) Thus no copyright infri…
I think GitHub gives you the right to download or fork the repo, but the license explicitly states that you can't use the code. That might mean running it on its own is technically illegal.
The license literally says "you can't use this". How are so many people confused about the license in this thread?