Re:New GitHub Terms of Service require removing many open-so...
by matthewmacleod on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @05:23PM
(#13769134)
As one example, "display" isn't made contingent on attribution.
That's fine, but in general these software licenses do not cover "display", they cover _distribution_. If you consider "using code in a movie hacking UI" to be distribution, then you would already have been bound by the license. If you don't, then you're not. Nothing changes.
Re:New GitHub Terms of Service require removing many open-so...
by dragonwriter on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @07:14PM
(#13770105)
> That's fine, but in general these software licenses do not cover "display", they cover _distribution_.
Yes, that means that "display", insofar as that corresponds to a copyright-protected exclusive right like performance, is not licensed by the license, and (if you aren't the original copyright holder) you have no authority to grant a sublicense to GitHub that covers display.
Re:New GitHub Terms of Service require removing many open-so...
by E6300 on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @09:48PM
(#13771001)
> Also, "nothing you can do to stop it" is not a grant of permission.
Okay, well, I give you permission to copy the words in this sentence into your brain, but you're not allowed to process their semantic content into a coherent idea. If you do, I will sue you.
As one example, "display" isn't made contingent on attribution. As an unusual but plausible example: a GitHub user could grab a pile of code from across GitHub and render it to construct a "movie hacking UI" for a film, without even an attribution for the code they used.
> since there's nothing you can do to stop it. How could you stop someone from privately running your code on their hardware?
(Also, "nothing you can do to stop it" is not a grant of permission.)