It's github's TOS that seems flawed to me, not Atlassian's. Maybe some jerk-off will sue Github because it's making "copies" of copyrighted coded without a license. I am more worried about that outcome than Atlassian going tyrannical.
Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket
21–30 of 51 posts
Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket
#22In 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.
In most cases there's some clause saying "we can pretty much do anything to these terms, as long as we give you 30 days notice". They can be as explicit as they like, the next company can just change them.
It's not that I disagree with you, I'm just calling out what I view as "selective license goggles", which I find particularly ironic given the nature of the service in question.
Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket
#23IANAL 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…
Also, they're give me a private repo for free if I ask for it, which is something GitHub doesn't offer, so a slight difference in ToS I would not find at all surprising. And this just sounds like a different legal template to me and not much more, they list specific things they need to do and then lump in the general "stuff we have to do with your stuff to make hosting work" clause, which is perfectly fine to me.
Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket
#24At 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 am not even sure that Atlassian has a different TOS than Github nor Assembla.
Atlassian is just ensuring with lawyer speak that they are able to do as they need to offer you the service that you signed up for.
Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The point of the post was, you give Atlassian a license, you don't give Github one. In this regard your TOS is the same as the Atlassian one.
Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sir, your ad hominem argument is a fallacy that proves nothing, and impresses no one.
If you want to give me an actual reason, rather than making your argument about my person, feel free. You have only asserted that they need the rights, but you fail to say why. Please feel free to chime in with facts and reasoning at some point, I am interested in what you have to say.
You are admit you are ignorant of the needs, but you go around commenting as if you have a clue.
You'll notice I said "seems". That's an English word with connotations of uncertainty and doubt, do try to look it up in a dictionary some time.
Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Ascribing motivations to my post is illogical, not to mention unfair. I have some genuine concerns, I posted them above.
Luckily, my account is with GitHub, not with BitBucket.
P.S. see my reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5888670
Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The point of the post was, you give Atlassian a license, you don't give Github one. In this regard your TOS is the same as the Atlassian one.
"However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories."
You are granting permission of ownership through forking to anyone - including github.
Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sir, your ad hominem argument is a fallacy that proves nothing, and impresses no one. If you want to give me an actual reason, rather than making your argument about my person, feel free. You have only asserted that they need the rights, but you fail to say why. Please feel free to chime in with facts and reasoning at some point, I am interested in what you have to say. You are admit you are ignorant of the needs, bu…
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5888471
Have you read this reply to your previous post yet? I think that's what was being referred to, and it clearly answers the issue bought up there and again here.
Re: Licenses Over Data: A Case Study with Github v BitBucket
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sir, your ad hominem argument is a fallacy that proves nothing, and impresses no one. If you want to give me an actual reason, rather than making your argument about my person, feel free. You have only asserted that they need the rights, but you fail to say why. Please feel free to chime in with facts and reasoning at some point, I am interested in what you have to say. You are admit you are ignorant of the needs, bu…
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5888471 Have you read this reply to your previous post yet? I think that's what was being referred to, and it clearly answers the issue bought up there and again here.
I read it after I posted the comment. Like I mention above, I was uncertain about the terms. It seemed to me that the terms are overly broad. For instance, he says "maybe they want to compress the data". Well, then if that's the case, write that. But currently it gives them the rights to modify source code. What happens if there is an implementation of patented code they don't like in a private repo? The current terms allow them to modify the data to remove that code.
Sure, probably won't happen, but what if they get taken over by another company. How do I know they won't do that?
He then mentions distribution in order to distribute to others specifically if you elect to do so. But if I choose not to, the wording currently allows them to distribute no matter what my wishes are.
Again, not something they are likely to do. But with legal documents, surely it's a good idea not to give overarching rights that you never intended in the legal document?