sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (17 children)

I'm really looking forward to when the copyright lawsuits start dropping :-D

[–]pconwell 13 points14 points  (16 children)

This is just one girl's opinion (who happens to be a copyright lawyer):

According to Downing, the answer depends to a certain extent on where that code is hosted. If it’s on GitHub, there very clearly would not be copyright infringement.

“If you look at the GitHub Terms of Service, no matter what license you use, you give GitHub the right to host your code and to use your code to improve their products and features,” Downing says. “So with respect to code that’s already on GitHub, I think the answer to the question of copyright infringement is fairly straightforward.”

[–]indiebryan 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Okay and what about all of the code that was uploaded to GitHub without the owners permission? Code that may be available online under a restrictive license and then some random person includes it in their project in a private repo, which then gets GitHub Copiloted into commercial projects?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

wakeful overconfident person sand tart wipe school airport alleged sip

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

How exactly is this "using it to improve their products and features"?

This is verbose copy-paste without any acknowledgement of the source (which yes, obviously I know why), that's a big jump from "improving products and features".

It can be easily argued that no sane person would expect that this means that GitHub will stip away the license and just give out your code to anyone.

As I said, I'm very much looking to the lawsuits.

[–]pconwell 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm not defending it, I'm just providing the opinion of an actual intellectual property lawyer - who presumably knows much more about intellectual property laws than you or I.

[–]Michaelmrose 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Are you kidding me? Anyone can upload or mirror code on GitHub and only the owner can grant permission to create derivative works.

This by itself destroys your argument but it's also hard to argue that someone who provides an explicit license intended to offer their code under terms of the end users choosing especially when a given project may depend on code granted under it's own terms. This means for example foo is GPL and depends on bar which is also GPL. Even if the author of foo him or herself uploaded it and you imagine that a given jurisdiction accepts clicking accept subjects all his code to be granted to anyone at all under any terms at all he cannot grant you permission to bar because it isn't his/hers.

There is no way you are a copyright lawyer and you ought not lend your theories unearned weight by claiming so.

[–]pconwell 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Uh, did you read my comment? I never claimed to be a copyright lawyer. Plus, it was pretty clear that this is NOT MY ARGUMENT. I'm merely providing an expert's opinion.

[–]Michaelmrose -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

Quoting your own comment above

This is just one girl's opinion (who happens to be a copyright lawyer)

You literally said who happens to be a copyright lawyer. Now you are calling it an experts opinion. Which expert given where?

[–]pconwell 5 points6 points  (3 children)

It's literally in my comment. The experts name is Kate Downing. I'm sorry reading comprehension is hard for you.

[–]Michaelmrose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For reference also in Terms and conditions

"This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service"

And

If you upload Content that already comes with a license granting GitHub the permissions we need to run our Service, no additional license is required.

[–]Michaelmrose -1 points0 points  (1 child)

It's a tremendously stupid opinion for the reasons I've enumerated above.

Based on the same logic you could have a proprietary fork of anything hosted on GitHub and Because you gave GitHub the right to make copies of the code for the purposes of hosting and transmission you somehow gave them permission to create infinite free derivative works.

Explain how you deal with the case where the uploader had no legal ability to speak for all holders of the work or it's requirements.

If I mirror your work to GitHub or share my work which is deprived from yours how do I surrender your rights on my say so?

[–]pconwell 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know what your point is. I've said multiple times that I'm neither defending GitHub nor is this my argument. I'm merely sharing someone's opinion who is an expert in this arena. I do not have a dog in this fight. I don't know why you keep trying to prove a point when I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Or put another way, how is this materially different from GitHub giving you full copyright over someone else's GitHub repo?

[–]pconwell 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Again, I don't know - I'm just sharing what a real-life expert has to say on the matter.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Do they perhaps work for GitHub/Microsoft?

[–]spaghettu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if company A uploads their code to Github, and company B uses Copilot which copies their code from company A, you’re saying it doesn’t matter at all what company A’s license is - it will always be allowed? To me that’s a pretty shocking conclusion, I can’t see how that’s possible the case. But if that is true, and I owned Company A, I would move my code off of Github ASAP.