Half of GitHub Code Unsafe To Use (If You Want Open Source)

WebMink writes "GitHub is a great open source hosting site, right? Wrong. There's no requirement that projects on GitHub provide any copyright license, let alone an open source one, so roughly half the projects on GitHub are "all rights reserved" — meaning you could well be violating copyright if you make any use of the code in them. And GitHub management seem just fine with this state of affairs, saying picking a license is too hard for ordinary developers. But if you're not going to give anyone permission to use your code, why post it on GitHub in the first place?"

Comments

Because

[OverlordQ]

Because it's a free place to store a git repo as a backup.

Re:Because

[Bieeanda]

And it's probably one of the first places that comes to mind, shows up on a cursory search, or is suggested by someone in passing. Given that the site maintainers are fine with the state of things, the issue would seem to lie with the assumption that all code there is OSS licensed, rather than its use as a catch-all repository.

Re:Because

[Anonymous Coward]

this. i've only used github for my personal projects. not everyone cares about contributing to open source projects, or making their code available to others. and there's nothing wrong with that. not everyone should be expected to share their work.

shocking and unbelievable, i know, but it's true.

Re:Because

[rbprbp]

This has been my approach to homework (which is mostly .tex and .py). For all I care, I don't mind if someone forks my homework or does anything with it. Though I wouldn't mind them merging their changes back :)

Re:Because

[cheesybagel]

I only use GitHub for code I have written under non-commercial licenses. Mostly Linux ports of former commercial games. SourceForge won't host them. Icculus is a bit of a pain to convince to host your code. GitHub is one of the few choices available gratis.

Re:Because

[HairyNevus]

That's a false comparison; those mp3s weren't uploaded by the artist themselves. If a musician uploads a track today with a free download, and provides the link without any password protection or encryption so anyone can link to and download it willy nilly, then yes, it's free and you can run it on your computer and listen to it.

I think they should put a warning up for people, that by downloading and compiling the code you could be in violation of the law,

By analogy, this would be like the artist putting up a track for download and saying it's illegal to listen to.

Re:Because

[Kergan]

A developer who downloads code for use in his project, without checking the licence first, shouldn't be coding in the first place. Seriously...

Re:Because

[amorsen]

In sensible jurisdictions, the act of running a program is not a copyright event, since it does not involve distribution. When you download, compile, and execute something from Github, the only copyright event is Github distributing the source file. The rest is not of concern to copyright law.

Alas, when copyright was conceived, copying and distribution were practically one and the same, so "right to distribute" was unfortunately misnamed "copyright". Many jurisdictions later looked at computers and misunderstood any bit duplication to be a copyright event. Denmark is one of the most extreme cases, where every (ISP or otherwise) router is subject to copyright law whenever it moves copyrighted bits around. That level of absurdity is fortunately fairly rare.

Unsafe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Code having a license term, you use it under that license. Whats the problem. So you can't cut an paste it. Good. But as a example of an implementation its still very useful/educational.

The license chosen isup to the author, get over it. This militant 'I want it all for free and without me having to do anything' is your problem, not the authors.

Re:Unsafe?

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

"But as a example of an implementation its still very useful/educational."

And opens you up to the possibility of being accused of creating a derivative work, which violates "All Rights Reserved".

Why?

[gcnaddict]

But if you're not going to give anyone permission to use your code, why post it on GitHub in the first place?"

Lets say I stumble across a fantastic utility, and the source is open for me to view. I'll dive through the code and make sure I'm comfortable with its functionality (i.e. it's not doing anything I don't want it to do) before grabbing the tool.

I'm not using the code for my own projects. I'm just vetting the code. Plenty of developers throw code for small utilities up for exactly this reason, and the vast majority of the world is totally cool with it.

Why post it on GitHub?

[Opportunist]

C'mon, it ain't that hard.

1. Post it on Github
2. Make everyone think it's free to use.
3. Sue everyone you can get your hands on who do.
4. Profit

Sensationalist article stating the obvious

[caseih]

Whether you are working on proprietary code or open source code, you can't just paste code from the net into your project without a license, regardless of whether it's GPL, BSD, or some royalty-free use grant. Unless the code has an explicit license, or states explicitly that it is in the public domain, you simply cannot use it without express permission from the copyright holder, because no law grants you that right. Plain and simple. So if code in a git repo is "all rights reserved," the you can look, and even download it, but you cannot put it into your own code. So I don't see what the problem is here. License always matters, whether you're a FLOSS person or developing commercial software.

So of course half of all git repos are unsafe to use. Why does this warrant some big sensationalist article? Kind of along the lines of articles claiming the GPL is a threat to proprietary software companies because it will "infect" them somehow magically. Folks, a little bit of understanding of copyright law will go a long ways I think. Open source, even copyleft, depends on copyright to keep it as such. We should all have a basic understanding of it.

Missing the problem here

[dugjohnson]

Github is a great place to store your repository. It is ALSO a great place to share code with people you want to work with who may or may not be really conversant with git.
Github doesn't claim to provide a repository for open source software...just a place to store repositories which you (as an author) may or may not choose to attach a license to. But that doesn't remove the responsibility of the copier to determine what the license on that software may be. If I copy anything, I need to know if I have the right (copy right) to do that. The onus is and always has been on the copier. That said, the copyright owner is the one who will follow up with violations.
Just because I choose to use github to store my repositories (and, in my case, I use and pay for private repositories for those things that I don't want to share) does not mean that I want everyone in the world to download and use my stuff. I'm an idiot if I am surprised when people DO use my stuff that I make publicly available, but without an explicit license allowing use of my code, it is protected in the US by copyright laws as soon as I write it...and IANAL.
Github is just a great service for those of us who don't want to set up our own repository. They are not a guarantor of free software, nor a nanny to protect me.

Re:Missing the problem here

[phantomfive]

Just because I choose to use github to store my repositories (and, in my case, I use and pay for private repositories for those things that I don't want to share) does not mean that I want everyone in the world to download and use my stuff.

Just so you know, in the terms-and-services you clicked on when you signed up for github, you actually gave permission to everyone in the world to download, view, and fork your stuff. So if that's not what you want, you might reconsider your use of github (Note: this only applies to the free public repositories).

Terms of github

[phantomfive]

From the terms of service from github:

We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.

If you use source code found on github, it's going to be hard for the author to win a copyright lawsuit. This is a non-issue. They've basically allowed you to fork the code (with the implication that you're going to modify it). I don't see them in any way being able to recover punitive or even statutory damages.

The real danger with github, as with all open source, is ensuring that the project's owner hasn't stolen proprietary code from somewhere else. Imagine if Linus had grabbed some files from Unix, then IBM would have been in a lot more difficulty during the SCO case. Fortunately the only things Linus copied were semicolons and braces.

But if you use someone's code through an open source project, you can be liable, even if you got the code under the GPL or BSD license, because the project's owner didn't have the right to give you that code.

Re:Reading code can be useful on its own

[icebraining]

Open Source, as defined by the Open Source Initiative, is most definitively a legal thing.

a ban on redistribution of derivative works doesn't mean that it's useless. Knowing the source code of a piece of software is important if you want to use it for any security-sensitive work or if you want to implement some modifications of your own (which you don't intend to distribute). It's not unheard of even that a developer company only gives the source code to their paying costumers.

This is why the author says it's dangerous.

Unlicensed code ("All rights reserved") is not a ban on redistribution. It's a ban on any copying, including forking the code to your machine. You most definitively can't modify the code, even if you don't intend to distribute it.