Keyframes: Delivering scalable, high-quality animations to mobile clients

Post by gridspy » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 12:16 AM UTC

idbehold wrote: post #103

zwegner wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that, by publishing this repo publicly on GitHub, there is a right to fork granted by GitHub's ToS[0], which this license seems to conflict with (though IANAL of course...). Not sure what "fork" means in this context, whether it's just duplicating a repository or also modifying it. [0] https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#f-... Section F.1: "By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly…

Agreed. I've already contacted GitHub to report abuse. This license seems to directly contradict GitHub's Terms of Service. It says: > [...] you are hereby granted a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to (1) use and copy the Software; and (2) reproduce and distribute the Software as part of your own software ("Your Software"), provided Your Software does not consist solely of the Software; and (…

Post by zwegner » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 12:22 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #122

zwegner wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that, by publishing this repo publicly on GitHub, there is a right to fork granted by GitHub's ToS[0], which this license seems to conflict with (though IANAL of course...). Not sure what "fork" means in this context, whether it's just duplicating a repository or also modifying it. [0] https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#f-... Section F.1: "By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly…

If the folks who uploaded it can't grant that right, github's TOS does not actually suddenly grant that right. It just makes it a TOS violation.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 12:49 AM UTC

caxtine wrote: post #126

echelon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the software license [1] include the following clause: > provided Your Software does not consist solely of the Software Why didn't you guys choose MIT or BSD? It feels like the custom Facebook license is close to the intent of these, but it has that mysterious gotcha. In any case, thanks for the software! It looks really slick, and I definitely have a use case for using it to replace the sprite sheet I used…

Hello all, I'm on the open source team at Facebook. We're about to fix the license file for the project so stay tuned. - Thanks

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 12:53 AM UTC

droopyEyelids wrote: post #136

caxtine wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hello all, I'm on the open source team at Facebook. We're about to fix the license file for the project so stay tuned. - Thanks

This is a huge overpromise. Why not say something like "We're asking the legal team to consider whether we can still publish our projects on GitHub"

Post by lozzle » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 1:37 AM UTC

echelon wrote: post #27

lozzle wrote: post #23

Hey, everyone! I'm one of the developers at Facebook who worked on this library since its conception! Really excited to be able to share this library today! I'll be checking up here periodically and can help answer any technical questions that you have!

Why does the software license [1] include the following clause: > provided Your Software does not consist solely of the Software Why didn't you guys choose MIT or BSD? It feels like the custom Facebook license is close to the intent of these, but it has that mysterious gotcha. In any case, thanks for the software! It looks really slick, and I definitely have a use case for using it to replace the sprite sheet I used…