Re: [ESPResSo-devel] New GitHub Terms of Service

[Ulf Schiller]

I had a chance to discuss with our IP officer, and here's my current 
understanding.

Section D.4 of the GitHub terms state: "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."

It is important to note that, e.g., the GPL does not simply grant 
rights, it grants rights under certain provisions. The above phrasing 
does not explicitly state that the rights granted each User of GitHub 
are subject to the terms of the license adopted, if so chosen, thus 
potentially creating a loophole for other users to strip off the adopted 
license. This is exactly what the Copyleft of, e.g., the GPL seeks to 
prevent (cf. Section 4 of the GPL). The problem here is that one 
effectively grants two licenses which may have incompatible provisions. 
Given that many people have contributed to ESPResSo under the terms of 
the GPL and may thus still own copyright for their contributions, it may 
be legally problematic to convey the whole or parts of ESPResSo under 
any other license (again, this is the intent of the GPL).

I am not saying that there are any sinister intentions on the part of 
GitHub nor that any rashly action is necessary (as neither did the 
article I linked, in fact). I am just pointing out that there is a 
loophole in the GitHub Terms of Use that one should be aware of. If my 
understanding is wrong, I'll be glad to be corrected.

Thank you,
Ulf

On 03/03/2017 02:47 PM, Ulf Schiller wrote:
> First of all, apologies for the "tracking cancer". I find it equally
> annoying but it is unfortunately beyond my control.
>
> Second, I have shared the link to create awareness of the potential
> issue and initiate a discussion.
>
> Third, I think most subscribers of this list will appreciate
> substantiating evidence for the claims that the "article is completely
> exaggerated" and that this case "is completely unrealistic". It may be
> the case, I simply don't know. Unsubstantiated claims, however, are by a
> vast majority of the scientific community considered bad practice.
>
> Thank you,
> Ulf
>
> On 03/03/2017 11:59 AM, Henri Menke wrote:
> > First of all the link without the tracking cancer:
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.mirbsd.org_permalinks_wlog-2D10-5Fe20170301-2Dtg.htm&d=DwIDaQ&c=Ngd-ta5yRYsqeUsEDgxhcqsYYY1Xs5ogLxWPA_2Wlc4&r=9HKBLELzR4cr8VDrFLGdom3-YW9ayOJQwH65Vt5eFQc&m=-zZTLcpCDdmUGfEFJcPUujvKxlXml-od5pY77JpNPsU&s=EebocPPCx5iyFtrgZ9Nht_NMVEvO34OfFIQbcImKyZo&e= 
> >
> > Second, we don’t have a problem and this article is completely
> > exaggerated, especially because this would mean that approximately 90%
> > of all projects on GitHub would be taken down.
> >
> > Third, if this is actually the case (which is completely unrealistic)
> > we just move to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gitlab.com_&d=DwIDaQ&c=Ngd-ta5yRYsqeUsEDgxhcqsYYY1Xs5ogLxWPA_2Wlc4&r=9HKBLELzR4cr8VDrFLGdom3-YW9ayOJQwH65Vt5eFQc&m=-zZTLcpCDdmUGfEFJcPUujvKxlXml-od5pY77JpNPsU&s=adzxGbNlkZfQ_qmKPnE2J-nNg-JMd0FJKfC37pwbpGc&e= 
> >
> > On 03/03/2017 05:34 PM, Ulf Schiller wrote:
> > > Stuttgart, we (may) have a problem...
> > >
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.mirbsd.org_permalinks_wlog-2D10-5Fe20170301-2Dtg.htm&d=DwICaQ&c=Ngd-ta5yRYsqeUsEDgxhcqsYYY1Xs5ogLxWPA_2Wlc4&r=9HKBLELzR4cr8VDrFLGdom3-YW9ayOJQwH65Vt5eFQc&m=24y_szbgE4sBUEMNZ-RRUdRRc6VOxrgeS0BSjdf9QHY&s=cFwd9YLHoQmAIZxA3oAH3t7v3bOc_0uquQbGS9Vkdp8&e=

--
Dr. Ulf D. Schiller
Assistant Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Faculty Scholar, School of Health Research
Clemson University
161 Sirrine Hall
Clemson, SC 29634

Office: 299c Sirrine Hall
Phone: 1-864-656-2669
Fax: 1-864-656-5973