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

31–40 of 51 posts

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

#31

Post by rmc »

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 & Distribute: If someone wants to download a zip file of your repository, then you have give BitBucket the permission to modify the content (to produce the zip file) and distribute it (to send it to someone who wants it).

Use it: I'm not sure, maybe to do syntax highlighting, they need to use the source code with a syntax highlighting software.

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

#32

Post by crusso »

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…

Yes, this article is absolutely horrible by coming to the opposite of the correct conclusion.

How could an attorney parsing the documents not notice the "in connection with operating the Hosting Service" stipulation?

Further, Bitbucket and Github are opposite in terms of the freedom you have to control your FREE repositories. Github forces your free repositories to be open to the public. Bitbucket allows you to keep some free repositories private.

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

#33

Post by crusso »

chris_wot wrote: post #30
mcintyre1994 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ter…

At some point, you should realize that conceding an argument makes you look a lot more mature and reasonable than continuing to twist and wiggle endlessly to make sure that people see that you're correct.

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

#34

Post by pjbrow »

crusso wrote: post #32
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…

Yes, this article is absolutely horrible by coming to the opposite of the correct conclusion. How could an attorney parsing the documents not notice the "in connection with operating the Hosting Service" stipulation? Further, Bitbucket and Github are opposite in terms of the freedom you have to control your FREE repositories. Github forces your free repositories to be open to the public. Bitbucket allows you to keep…

The wording "in connection with" is specifically considered in the article. Also, here is the definition for "Hosted Services" (it's extremely broad):

1.2 What's Included in "Hosted Services". "Hosted Services" include any Atlassian online services products that End User orders, which can include "OnDemand" versions of many Atlassian Software products, the Bitbucket hosting service ("Bitbucket"), and other online services provided by Atlassian. "Hosted Services" always means the version of the Hosted Services as described in Atlassian's then-current product descriptions. End User's detailed rights to use Hosted Services are in Section 3 below.

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

#35

Post by chris_wot »

crusso wrote: post #33
chris_wot wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ter…

At some point, you should realize that conceding an argument makes you look a lot more mature and reasonable than continuing to twist and wiggle endlessly to make sure that people see that you're correct.

Sure showed me, huh?

Seriously though, I said that my concern is that the terms seem overly broad. I gave some specific examples. Are you saying they are invalid? What is twisty about expressing my genuine concerns?

Frankly, if you believe the terms aren't overly broad, more power to you. I'm not sure I like the terms, luckily for me IMO I chose GitHub for unrelated reasons. Seems to me their license is a better fit for my comfort level.

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

#36

Post by mpchlets »

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?

Do you truly think that Github does not do the same? Any service needs to modify your data on the backend for the good of the service, including copying it to multiple servers for backups and ensuring uptime during a server failure.

They do not need to distribute your code, i.e. making your repo public - this is part of their service and you grant them the right to do so when you make it public.

Do they need to use your source code - well not explicitly as such, but they do modify it when displaying it back to you - look at any source code page, it is modified source code.

This is all in the auspices of giving you a good service.

Furthermore, any fork network modifies your repo - it is all one repository. So in essence, you are modifying people's repos without them knowing.

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

#37

Post by rbehrends »

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…

More importantly, Atlassian is further constrained by the confidentiality clause (section 8) of its End User Agreement [1].

[1] http://www.atlassian.com/end-user-agreement/

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

#38

Post by chris_wot »

chris_wot wrote: post #35
crusso wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point, you should realize that conceding an argument makes you look a lot more mature and reasonable than continuing to twist and wiggle endlessly to make sure that people see that you're correct.

Sure showed me, huh? Seriously though, I said that my concern is that the terms seem overly broad. I gave some specific examples. Are you saying they are invalid? What is twisty about expressing my genuine concerns? Frankly, if you believe the terms aren't overly broad, more power to you. I'm not sure I like the terms, luckily for me IMO I chose GitHub for unrelated reasons. Seems to me their license is a better fit…

Oh bravo. Downvoted me instead of engaging.

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

#39

Post by xtracto »

chris_wot wrote: post #38
chris_wot wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure showed me, huh? Seriously though, I said that my concern is that the terms seem overly broad. I gave some specific examples. Are you saying they are invalid? What is twisty about expressing my genuine concerns? Frankly, if you believe the terms aren't overly broad, more power to you. I'm not sure I like the terms, luckily for me IMO I chose GitHub for unrelated reasons. Seems to me their license is a better fit…

Oh bravo. Downvoted me instead of engaging.

Seems Reddit is leaking...

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

#40

Post by dakimov »

C'mon, Atlassian is not evil, they just want to avoid being sued.

I think that end-user agreements must be prohibited altogether, because it is a mean of discrimination. Either you provide a public service and then your relationships with users are guided by the state law, or you sign an exclusive contract out of public service. The main obstacle to that is the retarded US law system.

Post reply on HN