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

41–50 of 51 posts

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

#41

Post by mcintyre1994 »

pjbrow wrote: post #34
crusso wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ser…

Atlassian provide a lot of services which can be used in conjunction with one another. They probably use similar wording across their suite so that they are able to allow interaction between products etc.

I'm not sure where you got that quote from, but it's used exactly here: http://www.atlassian.com/end-user-agreement/ So yes, it's used across their suite, and doesn't seem overly broad in that case.

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

#42

Post by vacri »

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…

"In order to keep our prices low, we sold the contents of some private repositories" counts as 'in connection with operating the Hosting Service'. The author's problem is that the wording isn't particularly specific and can be used in a number of ways.

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

#43

Post by goblin89 »

rmc wrote: post #31
chris_wot wrote: post #5

Earlier 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?

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.

Does content modification in legal speak really have the same strict meaning as we tend to imply? I just checked Instagram's Terms for example, and they have no mention of modification—though they obviously do compress and resize submitted images.

This makes me wonder if altering a sequence of bytes (for example, after conversion to a different format) is really a ‘modification’ if it still represents the same work.

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

#44

Post by goblin89 »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #29
chris_wot wrote: post #26

Earlier 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.

“Maybe they want to store it in a compressed form” is not a clear answer, and subsequent unfair attack at the poster for me personally discredits the whole comment anyway. Having been a long-time Bitbucket user and welcoming their latest UI improvements, I begin wondering about these terms, too.

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

#45

Post by h4rrison »

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…

You can't deny that the wording is far more convoluted and vague, despite the precise legal implications.

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

#46

Post by jasonlotito »

chris_wot wrote: post #26
jasonlotito wrote: post #18

Earlier 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…

> If you want to give me an actual reason, rather than making your argument about my person, feel free.

I did. Before I made this comment.

> You have only asserted that they need the rights, but you fail to say why.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5888581

This was in reply to your "questions."

> 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.

You also said: "Rights they shouldn't have." without any qualification.

And you'll note that "seems" has multiple definitions, as well as multiple meanings when placed in context.

Regardless, even if we take "seem" at face value, it's not the issue. The issue is that they are asking for those rights, but you don't understand why they are asking for those rights. And your conclusion is that they shouldn't be asking for those rights. That's the problem. Your use of the word "seems" is meaningless. It doesn't matter.

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

#47

Post by jasonlotito »

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.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Down voting someone that replied to you or that you replied to doesn't count. That being said, this comment of yours right here is the exact type of comment that should get down voted. It's meaningless and pointless. It's childish, and offers nothing to the conversation. I cannot down vote it precisely because I'm replying.

Anyways, it's the type of commentary that isn't welcome here.

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

#48

Post by chris_wot »

jasonlotito wrote: post #46
chris_wot wrote: post #26

Earlier 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…

> If you want to give me an actual reason, rather than making your argument about my person, feel free. I did. Before I made this comment. > You have only asserted that they need the rights, but you fail to say why. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5888581 This was in reply to your "questions." > You'll notice I said "seems". That's an English word with connotations of uncertainty and doubt, do try to look it up…

Except that's not what I said at all. I said that I am concerned the terms seem overly broad. You haven't addressed this issue in any of your responses.

Like I say, if you are fine with sweeping rights to your material in legally binding contracts, more power to you I guess. I'm a little uncomfortable with them, I'm not a lawyer, though. Indeed, I don't know why they need those rights, neither do you. They are so broad, they could allow for a lot of undesirable things. I saw a lot of responses from others along the lines of "perhaps they need those rights for x and y", but actually nobody clearly knows the limits of the rights Atlassian grant themselves. If they chose to rewrite your source code or your history (hypothetical here...) then they could do that with legal impunity. Of course, it would be a PR disaster, and unlikely to happen, but I don't see how the points I raise aren't valid in any way.

If you can tell me, that's fine. If you don't have a counter argument, then I'm not going to engage any more. I don't feel like listening to your assumptions against my character - I don't know who you are, you don't know who I am, you don't know my motivations, and I don't know yours. I'm not sure I even really care, to be somewhat blunt.

Incidentally, I probably could have made myself more clear, what I was saying was that I felt that perhaps they were overreaching to grant themselves rights they probably never intended to have, but through their agreement they are so granted.

There was probably no need for you to use insulting language though. But if that's the way you want to conduct yourself, I suppose that's your prerogative.

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

#49

Post by Ziomislaw »

pfortuny wrote: post #8
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…

Copy: obviously, I want them to store my data and move them from HD to HD. Distribute: This is what a distributed version control system is for. Perform: Yes, please, format my .md files as specified. Display: show me my code please. Store: already covered. Modify: this is dubious but if I upload a change, they need to modify it. So I want to give them those rights if I want the service to work as desired, otherwise,…

modify may apply to editing files throght the browser

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

#50

Post by chris_wot »

jasonlotito wrote: post #47
chris_wot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh bravo. Downvoted me instead of engaging.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Down voting someone that replied to you or that you replied to doesn't count. That being said, this comment of yours right here is the exact type of comment that should get down voted. It's meaningless and pointless. It's childish, and offers nothing to the conversation. I cannot down vote it precisely because I'm replying. Anyways, it's the type of commentary that…

I've been on this site as long as you have, Jason. I know the rules, so will bow out gracefully at this point except to say that I was responding to the valueless comment "you should quit while you are ahead", which assumed I was trying to "win" an argument when all I have been doing is stating my concern that the agreement terms seem overly broad.

The commenter didn't feel any need to address this actual point, not sure how it contributed to the discussion in any way. I was quite annoyed I got downvoted, because I am genuinely interested in seeing an actual response to this particular concern. Also, it felt like bullying and groupthink.

Good day to you all :-)

Post reply on HN