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

151–160 of 249 posts

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

#151

Post by DangitBobby »

_t4sy wrote: post #148
DangitBobby wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can run the code on GitHub Codespaces I think this would fall under "use" which I dispute the GitHub TOS allows. > and you can dynamically link ended the code in other projects on GitHub through git submodules. Sure. As long as you do not compile and run it, you can link it until you turn blue in the face.

> As long as you do not compile and run it, you can link it until you turn blue in the face. With GitHub Codespaces and GitHub Actions you aren't compiling or running the code, GitHub is. From my understanding, this satisfies the following: > solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality

I don't really know much about CodeSpaces but yeah, if it is always run in a service provided by the GitHub ecosystem, you can probably run it. I don't know how useful that is. Also, it says you can fork it. It does not say you can modify it.

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

#152

Post by bouk »

DangitBobby wrote: post #132
whateveracct wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

clearly satire

Which part and in what way? Clearly the blog post is not satire, since the method works, and the license cannot be satire as it seems like it would be legally sufficient to prevent people from using it, which is exactly the stated purpose of the license. It's also implied that the author has received requests to change the license so others can use the package, which have been denied. The author even went so far as t…

Your reaction is the joke

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

#153

Post by bouk »

avodonosov wrote: post #130
Filligree wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The default is that you’re not allowed to use it. There needs to be an explicit grant of license to change that, and there’s not.

Do you refer any specific law?

It's called 'Copyright'

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

#154

Post by rob »

user5994461 wrote: post #110
user5994461 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> I also think it shows that licenses really don't matter all that much as some people think, they are not computer code. They matter as long you're willing to enforce them, and have the time and money to do so. In that case, you may be able to submit some form of take down request to GitHub against that project and other projects who are using your library. https://github.com/search?q=bouk%2Fmonkey&type=commits ed…

update: hit the jackpot the library is currently in use by Heroku/SalesForce to build deploy java apps (or something like that) https://github.com/heroku/java-buildpack/blob/master/go.mod I wonder what sort of settlement you could get if you were to send them a lawyer for real.

Welcome to America in one sentence.

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

#155

Post by stordoff »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #93
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.

“As a lark” would technically mean you did this while you were a bird. The correct idiom is “on a lark,” though because of so much misusage the average person excuses “as a lark.” Compare “I’m on line” vs “I’m in line,” or “as per usual” vs “per usual” or “as usual.”

Merriam-Webster and Cambridge both use "as a lark" in their online dictionaries:

> on/as a lark idiom

> US, informal

> just as a way to have fun

> She entered the race on/as a lark.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/as%20a%20lark

> lark noun [C] (ACTIVITY)

> an activity done for enjoyment or amusement:

> He started hang-gliding years ago as a lark.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lark (definition from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary)

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

#157

Post by mdoms »

jamesjansson wrote: post #74
bouk wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty funny right?

No, don't screw around with people legally. It makes you look dishonest.

I think his satire is excellent. Look at how these silly licenses are simultaneously taken very serious and frankly not taken seriously at all. I think he has proven something really quite interesting, and in a pretty amusing way.

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

#158

Post by reificator »

wheybags wrote: post #47

Side note, but for all the people saying this is absolutely godawful and the license is OK because no one in their right mind would use it in production, this project from MS does basically the same thing: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/detours/ Recently open sourced, but has been used for twenty years in real products from MS and others. It's not so crazy as you might think! An example of a real us…

To anyone else confused as I was, "this project from MS does basically the same thing" is referring to monkeypatching a running executable, not having a license that forbids use of the software.

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

#159

Post by mdoms »

still_grokking wrote: post #135

I'm completely baffled how people work. Something like that can't actually happen. At least if you assume people working on software can read. But it seems not even this can be safely assumed nowadays. How can someone include some dependency without checking the license? That's actually the very first thing to do, before you can even consider using something! Not doing this is extremely unprofessional. Additionally i…

A valid license does nothing to prevent supply chain attacks.

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

#160

Post by dmurray »

tptacek wrote: post #108
Vinnl wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That said, > If you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, according to the Terms of Service, other users of GitHub have the right to view and fork your repository. https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archi...

The idea that the Github terms of service negate "All rights reserved" in any public repository is a bold claim indeed.

You're granting GitHub the right to display your content to other users, and to make additional copies of it ("forks"). Those seem like reasonable rights to assign to Github when agreeing to their terms of service. I think it's completely clear that putting "all rights reserved" doesn't allow you to opt out of certain parts of the ToS, any more than the "I do not allow Facebook to use my content..." pseudo-legalese borderline-sovereign-citizen nonsense that goes viral every time Facebook change their privacy policy.
Post reply on HN