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

51–60 of 249 posts

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

#51

Post by dahart »

teraflop wrote: post #38
dahart wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

“Display”, “Use”, and “View” are all terms that are all talking about downloading. “Perform” means to run the code. You are still using the GitHub service when you clone a GitHub repo locally, that is part of GitHub’s functionality. What it’s not saying is that the only way to view a project is via an http connection through a browser to github.com.

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

#52

Post by gpm »

innocenat wrote: post #50
pabs3 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then you cannot grant such right to GitHub, thus, you cannot post to GitHub.

I do wonder about things like the linux kernel being uploaded to github though... it doesn't seem like all the contributors consented to giving GitHub this license.

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

#53

Post by gpm »

nerdponx wrote: post #45
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…

The license forbids use . The project is (or was) clearly using it. GitHub is irrelevant.

The license has no legal authority to forbid that which is not forbidden by law and/or permitted by other licenses the author has granted. (See other discussions here for arguments as to whether or not it has that legal authority)

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

#54

Post by bscphil »

semitones wrote: post #4

License 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…

> Used by counter on GitHub is at 464. The way it's worded would imply that they are all violating the license?

Yes. My read of the situation is not that it's a license that intends to stop people from using it, but rather that it's a license that selects for a specific target audience that doesn't care about copyrights or is anti-copyright.

In my opinion, that's a perfectly valid audience to select for, although a license that specifically prohibited any licensee from ever filing a lawsuit over a copyright claim or sending a DMCA takedown might be a funnier way to accomplish it.

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

#55

Post by mcguire »

wereHamster wrote: post #17
philipswood wrote: post #2

Quite 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...

> … I don't recommend anyone do it outside of a testing environment. … which is exactly dow it is used in dapr > This is only used in the test (and thus not.compiled and distributed in our binaries). (source: https://github.com/dapr/dapr/issues/3563#issuecomment-901563... )

There's a teeny bit of a difference between using it to explore monkey patching a go executable and using in the test suite of a released project.

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

#56

Post by bscphil »

oaiey wrote: post #8
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #6

GitHub 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.

No, this would also seem to protect users who click the "fork" button on Github. It would not, however, allow them to clone the software to their local computer or use it for any other purpose.

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

#57

Post by antoinealb »

gpm wrote: post #52
innocenat wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you cannot grant such right to GitHub, thus, you cannot post to GitHub.

I do wonder about things like the linux kernel being uploaded to github though... it doesn't seem like all the contributors consented to giving GitHub this license.

Those rights are a subset of those granted by the GPL2, aren't they ?

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

#58

Post by gpm »

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.

Eh, I feel like rewriting function pointers is a pretty standard trick, amusing (and definitely amusing that people are actually using it) but not terribly novel to the audience that finds these hacks amusing. Combined with the fact that the headline and issue is about the license/it takes multiple clicks to even find out what the library does, and it's not surprising that that's the focus.

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

#59

Post by josephcsible »

zdw wrote: post #31
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.

Instead of doing that, why not dual-license your program under CC-BY-NC and AGPLv3, and then sell exceptions?

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

#60

Post by michaelt »

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.

I have heard lawyers argue that, because to run a computer program (or play a DVD or whatever) it must be copied into memory, software that doesn't grant you the right to use it cannot legally be used.
Post reply on HN