[LEDE-DEV] Github's new TOS

[Alberto Bursi]

On 03/02/2017 07:02 PM, Daniel Golle wrote:
> Hi!
>
> For your consideration: Please have a look at
> https://joeyh.name/blog/entry/removing_everything_from_github/
>
> This is not very surprising -- if power gets too concentrated it's
> only a matter of time to see it being abused. Hopefully we can pull
> stuff out there without implicitely acknowledging the new terms by
> doing that.
> I wonder how big player (torvald/linux.git and such) are going to
> react to this.
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Daniel
>

tl;dr I'm not seeing anything evil in Github TOS, those articles look 
quite suspicious.

An excerpt of the TOS
https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#d-user-generated-content

5. License Grant to Other Users

...

If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant 
each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to access your 
Content through the GitHub Service, and to use, display and perform your 
Content, and to reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted 
through GitHub's functionality. You may grant further rights if you 
adopt a license. (link to 
https://help.github.com/articles/adding-a-license-to-a-repository/#including-an-open-source-license-in-your-repository 
)

--

This part above says that whatever you upload in a public repo is 
legally viewable and reproducible by anyone as long as it stays on 
Github (so the "reproducible" means "forkable in another Github repo"), 
if you add a (opensource) license you can grant more rights to others.

I'm not seeing how that breaks copyleft licenses.

and this is the part about Moral Rights (also discussed in the articles 
cited in your mail)

---

7. Moral Rights

You retain all moral rights to Content you upload, publish, or submit to 
any part of the Service, including the rights of integrity and 
attribution. However, you waive these rights and agree not to assert 
them against us, to enable us to reasonably exercise the rights granted 
in Section D.4, but not otherwise. You understand that you will not 
receive any payment for any of the rights granted in this Section.

To the extent such an agreement is not enforceable by applicable law, 
you grant GitHub a nonexclusive, revocable, worldwide, royalty-free 
right to (1) use the Content without attribution strictly as necessary 
to render the Website and provide the Service; and (2) make reasonable 
adaptations of the Content as provided in this Section. We need these 
rights to allow basic functions like search to work.

---

Please note the "REVOCABLE", and the "strictly as necessary to render 
the Website and provide the Service" and the "reasonable adaptations of 
the Content as provided in this Section"

which is probably connected to

---

4. License Grant to Us

Your Content belongs to you, and you are responsible for Content you 
post even if it does not belong to you. However, we need the legal right 
to do things like host it, publish it, and share it. You grant us and 
our legal successors the right to store and display your Content and 
make incidental copies as necessary to render the Website and provide 
the Service.

That means you're giving us the right to do things like reproduce your 
content (so we can do things like copy it to our database and make 
backups); display it (so we can do things like show it to you and other 
users); modify it (so our server can do things like parse it into a 
search index); distribute it (so we can do things like share it with 
other users); and perform it (in case your content is something like 
music or video).

This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell your Content or 
otherwise distribute it outside of our Service.

---

Again I'm not seeing anything evil.

I tend to see any accusatory article as highly suspicious unless they 
quote fully the bad parts of the documents they use as proof of 
wrongdoings, and neither of those you cited does. I might be spoiled 
brat, but that rule of thumb has never let me down.

-Alberto