Github ToS and Open Source

[Xen]

Paul Smith schreef op 03-03-2017 17:20:
> On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 16:57 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 16:35:31 +0100, Xen wrote:
>> > Colin Law schreef op 03-03-2017 15:24:
>> > > Can anyone explain the significance of this in words that the
>> > > relatively uninitiated can understand?
>> > > https://www.mirbsd.org/permalinks/wlog-10_e20170301-tg.htm  
>> >
>> > What it appears to say is that Github hosted projects can only be
>> > forked on Github, all projects must allow to be forked, and
>> > attribution-style licenses are forbidden.
>> 
>> Wouldn't this be a discrepancy? If something is GPL'ed and provided
>> at Github, why should somebody forking it, provide it via Github,
>> too? This would be an addition to the GPL. The GPL allows to fork a
>> project and to distribute it, without the restriction of being forced
>> to distribute it using Github. Right?
> 

> It's not the forking that's the problem: clearly if the code is under a
> free software license you _expect_ it to be forked.

Well not if you can only fork ON Github. There is the word "solely" in 
there.

Apple performed a similar act when it designed the licensing for its 
ebook software on the iPad. If you chose to publish on that iPad 
platform, you could publish nowhere else. So it has a precedent.

For the rest of it, schwa.


>> What the clause actually says is that if you submit code to GitHub
>> under the GPL, you are actually dual-licensing the code: You're
>> putting it under both the GPL, and the GHL. 
> 
> That's potentially very bad, because the GHL actually can be argued to
> work around the copyleft nature of the GPL (e.g., if you obtain the
> code under the auspices of the GHL not the GPL, you may not need to
> follow the requirements that you publish the source for binaries that
> you distribute).

I think technically this could be accurate although Github apparently 
also obviously only means... that they want their other users to be able 
to put it on Github, I am sure it is only for that.

So someone could indeed fork the project on Github, upload a binary, and 
then remove the source? Yeah, but... in any case anyone imposing 
licenses is bad I think.

I guess, or I think, they should delineate what happens if the source is 
moved OFF github again.

If source would always retain a dual nature I would not be too happy 
about it and I think they should qualify that.


Different question: is there a directory of legal cases that have 
actually been fought in the name of source licensing?