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

31–40 of 249 posts

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

#31

Post by zdw »

bouk wrote: post #25

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.

I've considered making a license that is basically MIT/BSD, but requires that anyone using an automated license checking/compliance system (any corporate users) to pay a fee to use the software.

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

#32

Post by JackFr »

inopinatus wrote: post #26
gpm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ad…

As pointed out in other comments, music and drama are exceptions to this where their ‘use’ is protected by copyright. You can read a play aloud if you like, but you can’t perform it publicly without permission (or royalties).

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

#33

Post by ocdtrekkie »

bouk wrote: post #25

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.

Yeah, I looked at your project, and immediately wondered why the fact that someone merged a patch using it at all wasn't the suspect issue...

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

#34

Post by gpas »

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

It crossed my mind...

Thanks for chiming in and clear the misunderstanding.

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

#35

Post by elric »

foreigner wrote: post #28

This is just mean! The documentation definitely reads like the library is meant for use, but the author forbids all use in the license.

Why is it mean? The author can use whatever license they like. If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to release your own code under a more permissive license.

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

#36

Post by dahart »

ErikCorry wrote: post #19
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…

Github has a valid license to distribute it but you are not Github so that doesn't give you a right to anything. In particular it doesn't give you a right to download it.

> In particular it doesn't give you a right to download it

That sentence is wrong, GitHub’s terms of service explicitly give users a right to download, and also run, the code of any project that is publicly visible. Please read the terms, especially section D “5. License Grant to Other Users”. https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...

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

#37

Post by nextaccountic »

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

It seems that you're not interested in suing anyone over this. However, you still don't give people permission to use, not even in small throwaway tests. Which is fair.

But your blog post[0] language suggests that you are okay with and even incentivizes people trying this out (even if trying it out might be technically illegal, because it infringes your rights).

I think you should have mentioned something about the license in your blog post. As it stands, "If you’re not interested in how it works and you just want to do monkey patching, then you can find the library here." is misleading. If the user wants to do monkey patching, they better not look at your code and program their own solution.

[0] https://bou.ke/blog/monkey-patching-in-go/

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

#38

Post by teraflop »

dahart wrote: post #36
ErikCorry wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github has a valid license to distribute it but you are not Github so that doesn't give you a right to anything. In particular it doesn't give you a right to download it.

> In particular it doesn't give you a right to download it That sentence is wrong, GitHub’s terms of service explicitly give users a right to download, and also run, the code of any project that is publicly visible. Please read the terms, especially section D “5. License Grant to Other Users”. https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o...

Those terms don't say anything about a right to "download and also run" code:

> 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

(emphasis mine)

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

#39

Post by pabs3 »

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 wonder what happens when I upload to GitHub code that I have permission to distribute, but that I don't own, that GitHub doesn't have permission to distribute and I don't have permission to give others permission to distribute.

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

#40

Post by [deleted] »

bouk wrote: post #25

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN