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

Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket

techlawyer.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 51 posts

Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket

#11

Post by toyg »

chris_wot wrote: post #5
casca wrote: post #2

IANAL but this doesn't seem unreasonable. The exact clause is: End User hereby grants Atlassian a non-exclusive license to copy, distribute, perform, display, store, modify, and otherwise use End User Data in connection with operating the Hosted Services. For me, the key is "in connection with operating the Hosting Service". They will need to do things with your data as they move it between servers and storage and ma…

Why do they need to modify the data? And why do they need to distribute it (assuming this is different from copying), and for that matter why do they need to use your source code?

Modify: things like the just-launched web editor will need to modify whatever data you originally uploaded. Distribute: git clone etc. Execute: scripts and so on, or even interpreting markup could be considered "using" a file in some contexts.

Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket

#12

Post by anu_gupta »

chris_wot wrote: post #5
casca wrote: post #2

IANAL but this doesn't seem unreasonable. The exact clause is: End User hereby grants Atlassian a non-exclusive license to copy, distribute, perform, display, store, modify, and otherwise use End User Data in connection with operating the Hosted Services. For me, the key is "in connection with operating the Hosting Service". They will need to do things with your data as they move it between servers and storage and ma…

Why do they need to modify the data? And why do they need to distribute it (assuming this is different from copying), and for that matter why do they need to use your source code?

> Why do they need to modify the data?

Maybe they want to store it in a compressed form

> distribute it

Making the code available for you or your collaborators is distributing it. How else would they do this?

Why not just email them with your concerns, if you actually really have some, and aren't just playing to the peanut gallery for karma.

Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket

#13

Post by mpchlets »

At Assembla, a project management tool that incorporates a repository service like github or bitbucket, we have a similar TOS as github:

"1. Assembla claims no copyright or other ownership rights in the Content you upload to the Service. 2. By uploading or otherwise providing Content to Assembla.com, You grant to Assembla a non-exclusive, royalty-free, paid-up right and license to use, reproduce, display and distribute such Content on Assembla.com in connection Assembla's provision of the Services to such persons as you may authorize. 3. You hereby represent and warrant that you have all intellectual property and other rights necessary concerning any Content posted by You on Assembla.com." https://www.assembla.com/terms_of_service

We do not want your data for our personal or corporate uses, we only want to display/reproduce/use your data with your expressed permission, i.e. you make your data public - the same as github.

The theory we have at Assembla is that the data is yours, always yours. We will never keep your data from you and we will never claim ownership over it.

We explicitly state that we do not own your IP because in today's world so many services are taking ownership over what you create. We feel it important to tell you right out that we do not claim ownership because if we do not, you will not know our stance.

Our stance is that we want you to feel comfortable using our service for both private and public projects for your data. We want you to be successful with a nice tool, we do not want to own your data.

Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket

#14

Post by davidjgraph »

In my experience, the vast majority of developers completely ignore/misunderstand licensing most/all of the time.

The common excuse is that the intent by publishing source code online is that you clearly are allowing everybody to use it freely as they wish. I have no doubt the licenses on Bitbucket are not followed correctly more often than not.

Atlassian, if you've followed them, have always been a very transparent, developer-centric company, the behaviour of neither the founders, nor the company has ever suggested they are in the slightest bit interested in being arseholes in the manner being suggested here.

Yet somehow there's a switch from 'intent' to being licensing experts when it suits.

Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket

#15

Post by jey »

davidjgraph wrote: post #14

In my experience, the vast majority of developers completely ignore/misunderstand licensing most/all of the time. The common excuse is that the intent by publishing source code online is that you clearly are allowing everybody to use it freely as they wish. I have no doubt the licenses on Bitbucket are not followed correctly more often than not. Atlassian, if you've followed them, have always been a very transparent,…

The problem is that control of the company could be transferred to other actors, in which case the original founders' "intent" becomes irrelevant. So the best thing to do is to encode the intended terms explicitly in the contract.

Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket

#16

Post by jasonlotito »

chris_wot wrote: post #5
casca wrote: post #2

IANAL but this doesn't seem unreasonable. The exact clause is: End User hereby grants Atlassian a non-exclusive license to copy, distribute, perform, display, store, modify, and otherwise use End User Data in connection with operating the Hosted Services. For me, the key is "in connection with operating the Hosting Service". They will need to do things with your data as they move it between servers and storage and ma…

Why do they need to modify the data? And why do they need to distribute it (assuming this is different from copying), and for that matter why do they need to use your source code?

Modify so they can change and update the code when you push revisions or use their web based editor. They need to distribute it so you or others you allow can clone it or view it online. They need to use your code so they can format .md files.

Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket

#17

Post by Uchikoma »

mpchlets wrote: post #13

At Assembla, a project management tool that incorporates a repository service like github or bitbucket, we have a similar TOS as github: "1. Assembla claims no copyright or other ownership rights in the Content you upload to the Service. 2. By uploading or otherwise providing Content to Assembla.com, You grant to Assembla a non-exclusive, royalty-free, paid-up right and license to use, reproduce, display and distribu…

You got me confused, your

"You grant to Assembla a non-exclusive, royalty-free, paid-up right and license to use, reproduce, display and distribute such Content on Assembla.com in connection Assembla's provision of the Services to such persons as you may authorize"

sounds much more like Atlassian,

"End User hereby grants Atlassian a non-exclusive license to copy, distribute, perform, display, store, modify, and otherwise use End User Data in connection with operating the Hosted Services."

not at all like the Github TOS.

Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket

#18

Post by jasonlotito »

chris_wot wrote: post #7
paul_f wrote: post #4

Why does any service need to assertively state they don't own your IP? They don't own your IP. And can't claim it. Whether they mention it or not doesn't change that fact.

But they do seem to say they have many rights to your code. Rights they shouldn't have.

Rights they need to have if they want to host your code. You asked in another comment why they needed certain rights, and now I see you commenting here as if you know what you are talking about.

You are admit you are ignorant of the needs, but you go around commenting as if you have a clue.

Github needs the same rights as bitbucket to do what it does.

Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket

#19

Post by ernesth »

From github's Terms of service : "You understand that the technical processing and transmission of the Service, including your Content, may be transfered unencrypted and involve (a) transmissions over various networks; and (b) changes to conform and adapt to technical requirements of connecting networks or devices."

In other words, the end user grants github a license to copy, distribute, store, modify End User Data (without encryption even if the user marked this data private).

Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket

#20

Post by mpchlets »

Uchikoma wrote: post #17
mpchlets wrote: post #13

At Assembla, a project management tool that incorporates a repository service like github or bitbucket, we have a similar TOS as github: "1. Assembla claims no copyright or other ownership rights in the Content you upload to the Service. 2. By uploading or otherwise providing Content to Assembla.com, You grant to Assembla a non-exclusive, royalty-free, paid-up right and license to use, reproduce, display and distribu…

You got me confused, your "You grant to Assembla a non-exclusive, royalty-free, paid-up right and license to use, reproduce, display and distribute such Content on Assembla.com in connection Assembla's provision of the Services to such persons as you may authorize" sounds much more like Atlassian, "End User hereby grants Atlassian a non-exclusive license to copy, distribute, perform, display, store, modify, and other…

I think you are misunderstanding the wording: "as you may authorize" - that bit is about you making it public, and only about you making it public - nothing else. You authorize it to be made public, github says the same as "By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories"

github is just not using lawyer speak, which is definitely cooler.

Post reply on HN