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

1–10 of 51 posts

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

#2

Post by casca »

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 make it available to you. If you want it displayed publicly then you need to have given them a license to do so.

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

#3

Post by magoon »

A service does need the right to store, process and display your data, and if their service makes use of third-parties then they need to assert the right to work with third parties.

That said, it would be comforting if Atlassian clarified this to make it clear they have zero claims on anybody's IP.

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

#5

Post by chris_wot »

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?

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

#6

Post by mnutt »

I'd be surprised if Atlassian inserted that phrase out of malice. I've been told by lawyers more than once that "it's necessary to prevent someone from suing you for doing exactly what they asked you to do". (display content they uploaded)

The lawyers also use it for covering all their bases. By uploading, do you automatically give them the right to feature your repo on their homepage? Or is that advertising?

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

#7

Post by chris_wot »

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.

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

#8

Post by pfortuny »

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, it would not be bitbucket.

Post reply on HN