Github ToS and Open Source

[Paul Smith]

On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 17:58 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 11:20:55 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> >That's potentially very bad, because the GHL actually can be argued to
> >work around the copyleft nature of the GPL (e.g., if you obtain the
> >code under the auspices of the GHL not the GPL, you may not need to
> >follow the requirements that you publish the source for binaries that
> >you distribute).
> 
> This indeed would offend the GPL. resp. the GPL would make the GHL
> null and void.

I'm not sure I understood that sentence ("resp."?) but if I did then
this is not true.  If someone decides to distribute code they hold
copyright to under two different licenses they can do so; the receiver
can choose which one they want to obey.  The two licenses can be in
conflict, that's fine because you only have to obey one of them not
both.


Xen <list at xenhideout.nl> wrote:
> I hate the license stuff as well and Myself I think that the GPL is
> not enforcable.

We'd better hope that's not the case, because if it is then almost the
entire internet / computing industry is constructed from illegal
copyright infringement.

Clearly those who are just doing things at home and for fun have the
luxury of saying "I hate the license stuff" and ignoring it all... and
I definitely recommend they do so because it's a quagmire for sure,
with very few absolute answers.

Unfortunately it's not something those that are basing their business
model and personal livelihoods on FOSS-licensed code are able to ignore
so blithely: they _have_ to deal with it, and we should let them do it
without scoffing, IMO.