deanjones · HackerTrans

4 lata temudiscuss

Well, I don't think it's a DCMA issue, but it does very much depend on the licence you have chosen. That's what the licence is for, to allow people to use the code that you have copyright of, and to define what they are / are not allowed to do with it.

deanjones

4 lata temudiscuss

Section D.3: "If you're posting anything you did not create yourself or do not own the rights to, you agree that you are responsible for any Content you post". A lawsuit against Github has no standing for the scenario you suggest, because Github is not at fault.

deanjones

4 lata temudiscuss

Which is what the licence is granting them the right to do.

deanjones

4 lata temudiscuss

deanjones

4 lata temudiscuss

> Is it a license violation to push someone's FOSS code to github because the author didn't sign up with GH?

It depends on the licence.

It's very much enforceable that companies who provide content publishing platforms will indemnify themselves against people publishing content to which they do not have an appropriate licence.

deanjones

4 lata temudiscuss

"desperate semantic games" is actually a reasonable description of the legal process :-)

I'm not sure I agree that anything expressed in a legal contract using natural language is "unambiguously clear". MS / Github's expensively-attired lawyers will not doubt forcefully argue that they are not selling the YOUR content, but a service based on a model generated from a large collection of content, which they have been granted a licence to "parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers". There may even be in-court discussion of generalization, which will be exciting.

deanjones

4 lata temudiscuss

There is no such thing as a "content display licence" or "general code licence". There is copyright (literally, the right to make copies) which broadly lies with the author, who can then grant other parties a licence to copy their content.

I'm afraid I do not believe your legal expertise is so extensive that you are able to accurately predict the judgement of "any court".

deanjones

4 lata temudiscuss

It's irrelevant whether it's standard or not. Again, the terms in the code licence (including attribution) do not apply to Github, because that is not the licence under which they are using the code. You grant them a separate licence when you start using their service.

If someone who isn't the author has uploaded code which they do not have a right to copy, they are liable, not Github. This is also clear from the Github Terms: "If you're posting anything you did not create yourself or do not own the rights to, you agree that you are responsible for any Content you post"

It's almost as if these highly paid lawyers know what they're doing.

deanjones

4 lata temudiscuss

"as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time."

deanjones

4 lata temudiscuss

"Without attribution" is a condition of the licence that applies to third-parties. It is not a condition of the licence that applies to Github.

deanjones

4 lata temudiscuss

This will fail very quickly. The licence that project owners publish with their code on Github applies to third parties who wish to use the code, but does not apply to Github. Authors who publish their code on Github grant Github a licence under the Github Terms: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

Specifically, sections D.4 to D.7 grant Github the right to "to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video."

deanjones

4 lata temudiscuss

Also variables.

deanjones

5 lat temudiscuss

I misread the UK figures, the above are for overweight-but-not-obese. The overweight-and-obese split of men/women is 67%/61% (NHS, 2019): https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/sta...

US figures are here: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statisti...

deanjones

5 lat temudiscuss

Leaving aside all of the possible confounders for the difference in severity of Covid-19 infection in men and women, it's not the case that women on average have more body fat than men. So for a "healthy" man and a "healthy" woman, the woman would tend to have more fatty tissue, but more men are overweight. UK figures show that 40% of men are overweight, compared to 31% of women. In the US, 74% of men are overweight, compared to 67% of women.

comments