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

Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 249 posts

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#21

Post by [deleted] »

HomeDeLaPot wrote: post #10
gpm wrote: post #7

I 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?

[deleted]

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#23

Post by JackFr »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #5
Y_Y wrote: post #3

So 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.

If I put up a message on a billboard, with a copyright notice denying the permission to read it aloud, would that be legitimate license?

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#24

Post by bouk »

gpas wrote: post #13

From the explaining blog post [0] > If you’re not interested in how it works and you just want to do monkey patching, then you can find the library here. Also > Wrapping it up in a nice library > I took the above code and put it in an easy to use library. It supports 32 bit, reversing patches, and patching instance methods. I wrote a couple of examples and put those in the README. Then in the README[1]: > Make sure y…

It's satirical

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#25

Post by bouk »

I love that all the discussion here is about the license I wrote and not about the actual project, which is a completely terrible idea and something I created as a lark.

Why did I not spell this out in the blog post? For my own amusement. I also think it shows that licenses really don't matter all that much as some people think, they are not computer code.

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#26

Post by inopinatus »

gpm wrote: post #12
HomeDeLaPot wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> That might mean running it on its own is technically illegal. Based on what law/authority? Copyright law forbids making copies, derivative works, etc. Not using things. You're allowed to read a book without a license. Moreover copyright law makes an explicit exception for the copies required to run a computer program on a machine that aren't used in other ways (i.e. copying it to ram/registers): https://www.law.cor…

Quite so. As written, it's a null statement. To be enforceable, a license has to be written by one party such that another party may acquire rights in exchange for accepting the terms. This is how licenses become contracts.

Simply reading the words "Don't use it" does not bind you, because there is no grant of use; there is no offer or exchange of value, so no contract has been formed, and the statement is at best advisory. It is equal to writing "All rights reserved", which is to say, you retain whatever rights pre-existed under statutory and common law, such as right of fair use and so forth, and anything due to Github's ToS.

Engineers often fall into the trap of thinking the law is a programming language. It isn't, mercifully.

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#27

Post by [deleted] »

gpm wrote: post #12
HomeDeLaPot wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> That might mean running it on its own is technically illegal. Based on what law/authority? Copyright law forbids making copies, derivative works, etc. Not using things. You're allowed to read a book without a license. Moreover copyright law makes an explicit exception for the copies required to run a computer program on a machine that aren't used in other ways (i.e. copying it to ram/registers): https://www.law.cor…

[deleted]

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#29

Post by JackFr »

Y_Y wrote: post #18
boomboomsubban wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the granting of rights to redistribute is governed by the applicable copyright law, as far as I know there is no equivalent body of law governing usage. You can't give someone information but attach conditions to its use, except in specific circumstances. You can certainly make someone sign a contract before agreeing to give them the information, but that's not what's occurring here.

IANAL but these specific circumstances of ‘use’ typically include copyrighted music and drama, which cannot be performed in a public or commercial setting without permission or compensation. The Beatles may own Yesterday but they can’t stop me from whistling it.

Where I think this case gets murky is that the item in question is not distributed or used by users of the software, but is part of the production process for it.

Re: Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use

#30

Post by eurasiantiger »

bouk wrote: post #24
gpas wrote: post #13

From the explaining blog post [0] > If you’re not interested in how it works and you just want to do monkey patching, then you can find the library here. Also > Wrapping it up in a nice library > I took the above code and put it in an easy to use library. It supports 32 bit, reversing patches, and patching instance methods. I wrote a couple of examples and put those in the README. Then in the README[1]: > Make sure y…

It's satirical

Have you checked how many projects depend on Monkey? It seems the blog post has been translated and reposted many times. Satire does not translate well.
Post reply on HN