[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ESPResSo-devel] New GitHub Terms of Service
From: |
Henri Menke |
Subject: |
Re: [ESPResSo-devel] New GitHub Terms of Service |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Mar 2017 10:17:25 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 |
One can use GitLab CI on our GitLab. Some projects already do, e.g. this one
https://gitlab.icp.uni-stuttgart.de/paper/paper01
(Sorry, link is only ICP internal)
On 03/09/2017 10:13 AM, Florian Weik wrote:
> Hi all,
> Welcome to the cloud. Just to ad my 2 cents: I think at least technically Ulf
> is correct. This makes it impossible to put code that you don't have the
> copyright for (as opposed to have been granted a licences to use it) to
> github. This is especially ill-fitting for jurisdictions like Germany where
> copyright can not be transferred. This is not so much a problem for ongoing
> development on github (the users have to agree to githubs ToS to get any code
> in, so that they automatically grant github the required licence) but
> impossible to fulfill for legacy code. We would have to contact all authors
> and ask for permission to use their code on github, which we obviously will
> not do. The analysis in the SO thread that Kai posted seems to come to a
> similar conclusion. One can only speculate what their rational behind this is
> (I think use in search and so on would have been fair use...), but I don't
> think we should go with this. Since we are running a gitlab instance in
> Stuttgart anyway,
> one way would be to continue development there, which would avoid such
> problems also in the future. A downside might be that tool integration is not
> as good, e.g. for travis, but I'm not sure about that. Alternatively we could
> just wait, assuming that this particular problem was overlooked and github
> will change its ToS. After all this affects all open source projects that do
> not have a contributors agreement that transfers all rights, including e.g.
> the Kernel.
>
> Cheers,
> Florian
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:47 AM Kai Szuttor <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>
> Maybe we should watch this SO discussion:
>
>
> http://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/are-the-new-github-terms-of-service-a-kiss-of-death-for-open-source-projects
>
> The current opinion seems to be that the new ToS grants gihub that you
> have the rights for the content to give github the rights to use your
> content without displaying your license.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kai
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 06:09:18PM -0500, Ulf Schiller wrote:
> > 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 <tel:(864)%20656-2669>
> > Fax: 1-864-656-5973 <tel:(864)%20656-5973>
>