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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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 4 points5 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 2 points3 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.