[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ESPResSo-devel] New GitHub Terms of Service
From: |
Kai Szuttor |
Subject: |
Re: [ESPResSo-devel] New GitHub Terms of Service |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Mar 2017 10:29:34 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
Since that jobs are running directly on the webserver we don't want to
use that right away. Having to build all PRs is quite a large load.
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 10:17:25AM +0100, Henri Menke wrote:
> 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>
> >
>
pgpUBooUz8jMR.pgp
Description: PGP signature