Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its use • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by DangitBobby » Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 8:55 PM UTC

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?

It's due in part to the absurdity of of publicly sharing something and then declaring "neener neener you can't use this." It's seemingly contradictory to open-source something that you forbid the use of.

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

#182

Post by chrisoverzero » Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 9:00 PM UTC

_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 told the judge that I didn’t kill anyone, the hitman I hired did! For some reason, he didn’t see it as you do.

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

#183

Post by dragonwriter » Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 9:11 PM UTC

Technically, that is not a license, since a license is something that grants permissions and that statement expressly does not.

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

#184

Post by shkkmo » Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

CyberRabbi wrote: post #172

shkkmo wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using correct terms helps to communicate effectively. What is wrong with promoting correct use of English? As has been mentioned elsewhere, language is constantly changing. It isn't even that slow of a process. As a result the vast majority of linguists view linguistics as a descriptive rather than prescriptive science. The "prescriptive" approach to linguistics is much more common among teachers but hopefully that…

> prescriptive approaches to language have a long history of being used to enforce class, ethnicity and geography based discrimination. This is a sloppy argument. Nothing about teaching correct English enforces discrimination and in fact it does the opposite by leveling the playing field. If one day teachers stopped teaching grammar, that would only worsen the linguistic shift across the races and classes, allowing t…

> “my tribe’s English”

That's where we are already. What you propose is forcing the other tribes to speak your tribe's english.

I am not saying that there aren't advatages to teaching people about other tribe's dialects. If you combine that with inclusive policies you can merge dialects. When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE linguistic drift.

I see nothing sloppy about my argument and I don't think that particular word (especially when you make no effort to explain what is "sloppy") is more of an ad hominem attack than perhaps you intended.

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

#185

Post by oaiey » Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #131

oaiey wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Res…

> You have to check if you are allowed to. It does not matter if it is a small pet project or the Linux Kernel. Actually it does matter and you don't have to. In practice pet projects are basically never going to be sued, it's simply not worth it. As a side note, a lot of techy people struggle to separate the law as written with the law as practiced. The ethics question is more interesting, but for something like thi…

The "pet project" was the dependency in my example which license would be violated.

The contextual author does not care for sure. But generally it is an ethical problem like you said but also a practical one. Once you stack enough pet (or should I say lpad) projects together something bigger comes out. And the liability is hidden three layers down the dependency tree.

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

#186

Post by CyberRabbi » Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #184

CyberRabbi wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> prescriptive approaches to language have a long history of being used to enforce class, ethnicity and geography based discrimination. This is a sloppy argument. Nothing about teaching correct English enforces discrimination and in fact it does the opposite by leveling the playing field. If one day teachers stopped teaching grammar, that would only worsen the linguistic shift across the races and classes, allowing t…

> “my tribe’s English” That's where we are already. What you propose is forcing the other tribes to speak your tribe's english. I am not saying that there aren't advatages to teaching people about other tribe's dialects. If you combine that with inclusive policies you can merge dialects. When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE linguistic dri…

It’s sloppy because it’s just a regurgitation of a talking point that has no logical basis. You and I both know that not teaching a standard English or pretending like one does not exist would only worsen language-based discrimination.

> When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE linguistic drift.

How exactly would that happen? It would provide a means for other dialects to adopt the standard dialect and communicate with the wider community. That’s the opposite of increasing linguistic drift. In the situation you’re suggesting, you’re expecting everyone to understand and communicate in every other dialect simultaneously. That’s just an unrealistic expectation.

> That's where we are already. What you propose is forcing the other tribes to speak your tribe's english.

I propose everyone who desires to participate in the English-speaking world voluntarily unite and find consensus under standard English. Stop taking something personally that isn’t personal and speak the standard English so that we may all better communicate and information can more freely disseminate across more populations.

Imagine if people started making the argument that correcting incorrect Python was racist/classist and people should just start forking Python if they do not like standard Python. That would be silly yet that is what you are suggesting. Obviously having a single agreed-upon dialect of Python is beneficial to everyone and it shouldn’t be personally offensive to recommend that people program in standard Python.

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

#187

Post by handelaar » Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

CyberRabbi wrote: post #125

Twirrim wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I did it as a lark" has been used as an expression for a long time already, well over a century. To give a few examples, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Boy_s_Own_Annual/X7... "Sure as goodness, I thought you both did it as a lark", from a book published in 1895, so it's reasonable to assume it was already in some level of common idiom by then. It's unlikely The Boys Own Annual was trail blazing in its use…

A few exceptional Google books searches does not prove the rule. Using correct English increases the chances that others will understand what we are saying, improving the chances of accomplishing our goals. What is wrong with helping others in that?

"On a lark" is something I (a native English speaker, from London, which is in England, after which the language is named) have never heard or seen written -- anywhere -- before your ill-considered and wholly-incorrect posts on this thread.

Shush.

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

#188

Post by dahart » Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

mrpimpunicorn wrote: post #137

dahart wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

"Perform" means to run the code THROUGH GitHub and its services (i.e. Actions). You are NOT allowed to run the code on any hardware YOU own. Downloading is an implementation detail of performing your right to "Display", "Use", and "View" the content ON GitHub and its services. You are forbidden from downloading the content for any other purpose.

> You are NOT allowed to run the code on any hardware YOU own.

Sure you are, that is just not true.

> You are forbidden from downloading the content for any other purpose

The rights GitHub grants allow a copy to be made. What you can’t do is redistribute the code, that part is clear. But what you do with it on your machine when not showing it to anyone else is not prohibited by GitHub’s terms, nor by copyright law. I’ve read both. If you have too, and believe otherwise, please cite the relevant sections.

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

#189

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 9:39 PM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #116

wejick wrote: post #107

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.

https://github.com/bouk/monkey/blob/master/LICENSE.md Then why publish the blog post and put it into a package??

[deleted]

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

#190

Post by smsm42 » Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

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.

License aren't computer code, they are social code. That matters more, not less, than computer code, at least until we're all disembodied brains in a large VR matrix - because usually people run code for people purposes, not the reverse. Coders frequently ignore this aspect, but not everybody has this luxury.