Github ToS and Open Source

[Xen]

Ralf Mardorf schreef op 03-03-2017 18:24:
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 17:37:55 +0100, Xen wrote:
>> Different question: is there a directory of legal cases that have
>> actually been fought in the name of source licensing?
> 
> I don't know, but there were several ludicrous flames about licensing
> issues on Linux mailing lists, that resulted in discontinued forks and
> all kinds of discord. Without ever becoming a legal case, unfair
> pressure easily happens by orthodox Linux communities. This could have
> more impact than a legal case by a constitutional court.
> IIRC this was such a case:
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/2013-September/034140.html

Yes that is the point I was trying to make also later on.

Such licensing terms, or efforts can have a serious impact on the 
feeling of people on what they can and cannot do, until a court actually 
decides on these matters.

If Github is going to do things they themselves can enforce, such as 
close accounts that don't comply, or arbitrage on behalf of other users 
you have a problem with (with the result of closing your account)

then they take matters into their own hands until a court has spoken 
about the issue which may take a very long time and as a consequence 
these licensing terms can have a huge impact on the community.

There are many many terms and conditions in the ordinary world also that 
courts will reject when brought to court. Just because a company says so 
doesn't make it real. Companies think they can do anything and try to 
uphold this in a court of law also, but they are often given the finger 
by judges, so to speak.

So I just wonder if there are any actual court cases besides the ones I 
can easily find (the ones that are written about) because without a 
context of actual results it remains a bit of ... hearsay. It's a lot of 
scaremongering by people who have not actually put it to the test.

This goes to the GPL also, but in this case it seems pretty clear that 
ordinarily courts will decide that the Github license is only going to 
apply to the functioning of the github system and not to the overall 
project, because this would simply be ludicrous.

I hate the license stuff as well and Myself I think that the GPL is not 
enforcable.

So it makes me nervous to think that not only do we have a GPL that you 
*might* be able to fight but you are unsure so you don't want to test it 
unless you have a reason to, now also we have a Github License that 
tries to wring this around itself, as if it tries to wear the GPL but 
the wearer is not very suited for it.

The same reason people didn't like the "do no evil" license. People just 
get nervous from all these uncertainties that are untested.

So I think Github should really just clarify that the Github license 
only is meant to guarantee the forking that already happens on Github 
and nothing else. It should confirm or validate the existing forming 
techniques that are used.

They should clearly delineate the limits and become as small as possible 
in that sense, or this is not going to go well I think.