[HN Gopher] Project includes a dependancy that has a license tha...
___________________________________________________________________
Project includes a dependancy that has a license that forbids its
use
Author : withinboredom
Score : 181 points
Date : 2021-08-22 08:06 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| mdoms wrote:
| It's crazy to me that people would intentionally introduce monkey
| patching into a language where it's not supported.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| I dont know how that could be surprising as sometimes monkey
| patching is the best (only?) way to do something.
| gpas wrote:
| From the explaining blog post [0]
|
| > If you're not interested in how it works and you just want to
| do monkey patching, then you can find the library here.
|
| Also
|
| > Wrapping it up in a nice library
|
| > I took the above code and put it in an easy to use library. It
| supports 32 bit, reversing patches, and patching instance
| methods. I wrote a couple of examples and put those in the
| README.
|
| Then in the README[1]:
|
| > Make sure you read the notes at the bottom of the README if you
| intend to use this library.
|
| Either the author is confused or has decided that he doesn't want
| to maintain an hack. Anyway license is pretty clear.
|
| There was an HN thread[2] when it was released.
|
| [0] https://bou.ke/blog/monkey-patching-in-go/
|
| [1] https://github.com/bouk/monkey
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9290917
| llimos wrote:
| Presumably revision 697673d58359af7ebdcad66f99b81d011359d8ef
| and earlier is perfectly fine to use, lacking a LICENSE.txt and
| with the README encouraging use
| Shank wrote:
| If no license is present, the default is actually "all rights
| reserved." This is the same level of restriction.
|
| https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/
| Vinnl wrote:
| That said,
|
| > If you publish your source code in a public repository on
| GitHub, according to the Terms of Service, other users of
| GitHub have the right to view and fork your repository.
|
| https://docs.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-
| archi...
| tptacek wrote:
| The idea that the Github terms of service negate "All
| rights reserved" in any public repository is a bold claim
| indeed.
| dmurray wrote:
| You're granting _GitHub_ the right to display your
| content to other users, and to make additional copies of
| it ( "forks"). Those seem like reasonable rights to
| assign to Github when agreeing to their terms of service.
| I think it's completely clear that putting "all rights
| reserved" doesn't allow you to opt out of certain parts
| of the ToS, any more than the "I do not allow Facebook to
| use my content..." pseudo-legalese borderline-sovereign-
| citizen nonsense that goes viral every time Facebook
| change their privacy policy.
| Macha wrote:
| The actual term (D.5 from
| https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-
| terms-o... )
|
| > Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including
| issues, comments, and contributions to other Users'
| repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your
| repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow
| others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means
| that others may make their own copies of Content from
| your repositories in repositories they control).
|
| > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed
| publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive,
| worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your
| Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your
| Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's
| functionality (for example, through forking). You may
| grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are
| uploading Content you did not create or own, you are
| responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is
| licensed under terms that grant these permissions to
| other GitHub Users.
|
| This allows you to browse and use the fork button to
| create a repository. It's unclear if the second paragraph
| is clarifying, or adding to the first term. If it's
| additive, then you might also have permission to host
| your own private repo off service.
|
| Nowhere does it give you a license to _use_ the contents
| of the repository in your software. Nor does it allow you
| to publish the contents outside github - the first
| paragraph does not address publishing, and the second
| makes it clear that paragraph only applies "through
| Github's functionality".
| slim wrote:
| The author is not confused, it's like an actually enforcable
| version of "use it at your own risk" because it includes legal
| risk. It's clever and funny
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Gonna have to disagree that it's funny.
| bouk wrote:
| It's satirical
| bawolff wrote:
| What is it satirizing?
|
| Or is this just a post-hoc "its just a joke bro. Y u mad?"
|
| Regardless, its your code, do what you want.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Ding ding ding. There is no satire to be found here.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| It seems that you're not interested in suing anyone over
| this. However, you still don't give people permission to use,
| not even in small throwaway tests. Which is fair.
|
| But your blog post[0] language suggests that you are okay
| with and even incentivizes people trying this out (even if
| trying it out might be technically illegal, because it
| infringes your rights).
|
| I think you should have mentioned something about the license
| in your blog post. As it stands, "If you're not interested in
| how it works and you just want to do monkey patching, then
| you can find the library here." is misleading. If the user
| wants to do monkey patching, they better not look at your
| code and program their own solution.
|
| [0] https://bou.ke/blog/monkey-patching-in-go/
| bouk wrote:
| Pretty funny right?
| bryik wrote:
| Not really. The JSLint license is funny because objecting
| to the "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil."
| requirement looks like an admission of malintent. Doubly
| funny that it compelled IBM to ask for explicit
| permission to use JSLint for evil.
|
| Your project, on the other hand, just looks like it was
| designed to waste people's time. Congrats I guess?
| akiselev wrote:
| Has anyone ever tested in court whether a license has to
| be made in good faith to be binding?
| Vinnl wrote:
| An open source licence generally only gives additional
| rights. If it's not binding, then default copyright would
| apply, meaning you're still not allowed to use it.
| [deleted]
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| Well, if it isn't binding, then there's no right to reuse
| it (beyond certain fair use exceptions) under the
| copyright law that applies by default.
|
| For me the question is whether the misleading blog post
| would be found by a court to be an implicit license
| separate from the one in the codebase. My guess is that
| it would depend on several factors including the specific
| circumstances of the accused infringer and the specifics
| of contract/copyright law in the relevant jurisdiction,
| but probably at least sometimes yes.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| TIL something can be implicitly licensed. Well the term
| is implied license
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_license
| jamesjansson wrote:
| No, don't screw around with people legally. It makes you
| look dishonest.
| icedchai wrote:
| How is he screwing around with anyone legally? Has anyone
| been sued over this? Most of this stuff is unenforceable
| in any meaningful way. Worst case is really some nasty
| emails.
| mdoms wrote:
| I think his satire is excellent. Look at how these silly
| licenses are simultaneously taken very serious and
| frankly not taken seriously at all. I think he has proven
| something really quite interesting, and in a pretty
| amusing way.
| tptacek wrote:
| He does not look dishonest. He looks like the hero we all
| deserve. Dial it back a bit, would you?
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| I found it really funny!
| nhutton1 wrote:
| I think so. There is also second-order funnyness from all
| of the very serious nerds who don't find it funny at all.
| I'm loving it ahah!
| concordDance wrote:
| Yes, I had a chortle, particularly at the reactions in
| this thread. :D
|
| Though I'm an anarchist who thinks people give the law as
| written far too much weight. (As opposed to what the
| population as a whole thinks is good or bad)
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Not in the slightest, but I guess that's your kick.
| bhaak wrote:
| Satire doesn't work very well on the internet in textual
| context. That's why emoticons were invented.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Have you checked how many projects depend on Monkey? It seems
| the blog post has been translated and reposted many times.
| Satire does not translate well.
| gpas wrote:
| It crossed my mind...
|
| Thanks for chiming in and clear the misunderstanding.
| merrywhether wrote:
| You can also check the revision dates and see that the license
| was updated a year after the readme, which would imply any
| encouraging language in the readme is simply out of date.
| philipswood wrote:
| Quite an unusual, but effective, way to mark something as a proof
| of concept that's dangerous to use:
|
| From [1]: "This is as unsafe as it sounds and I don't recommend
| anyone do it outside of a testing environment."
|
| [1]: https://github.com/bouk/monkey#i-thought-that-
| monkeypatching...
| Fuzzeh wrote:
| You don't have the right to use it, even in a testing
| environment. The license denys you the right to use it.
| wereHamster wrote:
| > ... I don't recommend anyone do it outside of a testing
| environment.
|
| ... which is exactly dow it is used in dapr
|
| > This is only used in the test (and thus not.compiled and
| distributed in our binaries).
|
| (source: https://github.com/dapr/dapr/issues/3563#issuecomment-
| 901563...)
| mcguire wrote:
| There's a teeny bit of a difference between using it to
| explore monkey patching a go executable and using in the test
| suite of a released project.
| reificator wrote:
| > > _... I don 't recommend anyone do it outside of a testing
| environment._
|
| > _... which is exactly dow it is used in dapr_
|
| Eh... There's a difference between "a testing environment" as
| used in that quote and "as part of an automated test" as you
| mean here.
|
| To me the former implies an experimental and/or ad-hoc
| environment, while the latter implies a stable, production
| environment.
| CrazyPyroLinux wrote:
| This feels like "Left-pad 2: Electric Boogaloo"
|
| edit: Although, "This is only used in the test (and thus
| not.compiled and distributed in our binaries)."
| https://github.com/dapr/dapr/issues/3563#issuecomment-901563...
| Y_Y wrote:
| So there is no grant of copyright to distribute copies of the
| dependency, but what about useyright? The dependant project just
| uses the the dependency to run a test. Supposing it didn't
| distribute it as part of the release, is that still allowable?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| The conflicting license states
|
| >I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any
| purpose. Don't use it.
|
| So no use rights either.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| Copyright does not give authority over use, only over
| redistribution.
| JackFr wrote:
| If I put up a message on a billboard, with a copyright notice
| denying the permission to read it aloud, would that be
| legitimate license?
| Thiez wrote:
| It would be a silly license. I imagine reading aloud a
| message on a billboard would be ruled fair use.
| Republishing of your message by an unauthorized party could
| be infringement, but your license doesn't change that; the
| default ("no license") is "all rights reserved" so
| redistribution is already forbidden.
| Y_Y wrote:
| But the granting of rights to redistribute is governed by the
| applicable copyright law, as far as I know there is no
| equivalent body of law governing usage. You can't give
| someone information but attach conditions to its use, except
| in specific circumstances. You can certainly make someone
| sign a contract before agreeing to give them the information,
| but that's not what's occurring here.
| michaelt wrote:
| I have heard lawyers argue that, because to run a computer
| program (or play a DVD or whatever) it must be copied into
| memory, software that doesn't grant you the right to use it
| cannot legally be used.
| gpm wrote:
| This argument doesn't make sense to me (under US law)
| given that
|
| > (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of
| Copy.--Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it
| is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a
| computer program to make or authorize the making of
| another copy or adaptation of that computer program
| provided:
|
| > (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
| essential step in the utilization of the computer program
| in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no
| other manner, or
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
| mrpimpunicorn wrote:
| (a) doesn't hold because you aren't the owner of a
| copyrighted work that is licensed to you. You're also not
| even being given a license in this context.
|
| Read GitHub's TOS, they explicitly state you give them
| the right to copy your work in order to allow for forking
| because their lawyers KNOW they have no rights otherwise
| and could be sued.
| gpm wrote:
| (a) doesn't refer to owning the copyright, it refers to
| owning the physical copy (the hardware which the
| information is saved on, the paper and ink in a book).
|
| GitHub's TOS requires permission to copy, because github
| is not just executing your code.
| cxr wrote:
| > as far as I know there is no equivalent body of law
| governing usage. You can't give someone information but
| attach conditions to its use
|
| There is, and you can. It's called patent law. If the
| author of this license also had a patent, they could deny
| others the ability to use it. But unlike copyright, you are
| not automatically granted a patent for your creations.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >You can't give someone information but attach conditions
| to its use, except in specific circumstances.
|
| Wouldn't that effectively bar the use of DRM? If I buy a
| blu-ray, I can't legally watch it unless I have a player
| capable of unlocking the content.
|
| That may be one of the "specific circumstances," as there
| is a law that specifically forbids bypassing DRM.
| concordDance wrote:
| > If I buy a blu-ray, I can't legally watch it unless I
| have a player capable of unlocking the content
|
| Depends on jurisdiction.
| JackFr wrote:
| IANAL but these specific circumstances of 'use' typically
| include copyrighted music and drama, which cannot be
| performed in a public or commercial setting without
| permission or compensation. The Beatles may own Yesterday
| but they can't stop me from whistling it.
|
| Where I think this case gets murky is that the item in
| question is not distributed or used by users of the
| software, but is part of the production process for it.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| Does that make it law? What if he typed "Every time you run
| this code you owe me 5 bucks" ?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Technically, that is not a license, since a license is something
| that grants permissions and that statement expressly does not.
| semitones wrote:
| License reads:
|
| > "Copyright Bouke van der Bijl
|
| I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any
| purpose. Don't use it.
|
| I'm not interested in changing this license. Please don't ask. "
|
| Used by counter on GitHub is at 464. The way it's worded would
| imply that they are all violating the license? How can this be
| enforced for inconsequential small pet projects? Is this really
| something to worry about, particularly with what (seems to me) to
| be a sort-of spurious license?
| bscphil wrote:
| > Used by counter on GitHub is at 464. The way it's worded
| would imply that they are all violating the license?
|
| Yes. My read of the situation is _not_ that it 's a license
| that intends to stop people from using it, but rather that it's
| a license that selects for a specific target audience that
| doesn't care about copyrights or is anti-copyright.
|
| In my opinion, that's a perfectly valid audience to select for,
| although a license that specifically prohibited any licensee
| from ever filing a lawsuit over a copyright claim or sending a
| DMCA takedown might be a funnier way to accomplish it.
| Filligree wrote:
| I'm anti-copyright.
|
| I still wouldn't use this code, because I don't want to break
| the law. Being anti-copyright doesn't mean you also need to
| be against due process.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| Being willing to break the law doesn't mean you're against
| due process. Due process is what happens afterwards, that
| safeguards you from being punished for doing something you
| have not done.
| oaiey wrote:
| Yes. You take something you do not own (even down the tree).
| You have to check if you are allowed to. It does not matter if
| it is a small pet project or the Linux Kernel.
|
| Sure you can ignore him and wait for him to lawyer up and make
| your life miserable. Considering that IT specialists which have
| capacity to contribute to open source are typically not poor or
| have idealogical interests, I would not take the bets.
|
| Respect the wishes of the people you take code from.
|
| License checking is like code coverage. If you are a
| professional you take care of it.
| concordDance wrote:
| > You have to check if you are allowed to. It does not matter
| if it is a small pet project or the Linux Kernel.
|
| Actually it does matter and you don't have to. In practice
| pet projects are basically never going to be sued, it's
| simply not worth it. As a side note, a lot of techy people
| struggle to separate the law as written with the law as
| practiced.
|
| The ethics question is more interesting, but for something
| like this which is clearly satirical? No harm, no foul.
| oaiey wrote:
| The "pet project" was the dependency in my example which
| license would be violated.
|
| The contextual author does not care for sure. But generally
| it is an ethical problem like you said but also a practical
| one. Once you stack enough pet (or should I say lpad)
| projects together something bigger comes out. And the
| liability is hidden three layers down the dependency tree.
| wejick wrote:
| Copyright Bouke van der Bijl
|
| I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any
| purpose. Don't use it.
|
| I'm not interested in changing this license. Please don't ask.
| Groxx wrote:
| If it keeps this out of production in even a handful of
| companies, that's probably a good thing in aggregate.
|
| It's a neat blog post, shows interesting internals, and no -
| you should not do it.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| https://github.com/bouk/monkey/blob/master/LICENSE.md
|
| Then why publish the blog post and put it into a package??
| [deleted]
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Look, don't touch.
| whateveracct wrote:
| clearly satire
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Which part and in what way? Clearly the blog post is not
| satire, since the method works, and the license cannot be
| satire as it seems like it would be legally sufficient to
| prevent people from using it, which is exactly the stated
| purpose of the license. It's also implied that the author
| has received requests to change the license so others can
| use the package, which have been denied. The author even
| went so far as to remind people in this comment thread that
| they don't want it to be used! The license is serious on
| its face and in practice. Where is the joke?
| bouk wrote:
| Your reaction is the joke
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Hilarious.
| zodiakzz wrote:
| Sure. It is a "joke" until you're tempted to sue a big
| enough fish that falls for it and get some people fired.
| Pathetic.
| [deleted]
| Sephr wrote:
| You have the right to use this project via git submodules. The
| GitHub terms of service requires code owners to allow forking
| and linking to their public repositories, regardless of
| license.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| It does not appear to grant (or attempt to grant) use of the
| software. So sharing and forking are fine, but not
| necessarily anything else.
|
| > 5. License Grant to Other Users
|
| > Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including
| issues, comments, and contributions to other Users'
| repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your
| repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others
| to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others
| may make their own copies of Content from your repositories
| in repositories they control).
|
| > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed
| publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive,
| worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content
| through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content
| solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality
| (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights
| if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did
| not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the
| Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these
| permissions to other GitHub Users
| Sephr wrote:
| > So sharing and forking are fine, but not necessarily
| anything else.
|
| Did I imply otherwise? Git submodules are just links.
| Please explain how linking to a submodule is not allowed.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Well, I thought the purpose of linking in git submodules
| was to compile the source code and then use it. The
| "using it" is not granted by the GitHub license. Did I
| misunderstand your original point? If not, the verbiage
| "use this project via git submodules" which uses the word
| "use" was the source of my confusion.
|
| Was someone disputing the right of OP to share a link to
| the blog post or the repository?
| Sephr wrote:
| You said it yourself: GitHub users can use GitHub
| projects on GitHub. Git submodules stay on GitHub, so
| it's allowed.
|
| > you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide
| license to use, display, and perform Your Content through
| the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely
| on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality
| (for example, through forking)
|
| You can run the code on GitHub Codespaces & GitHub
| Actions, you can fork the code to make changes, and you
| can dynamically link/embed the code in other projects on
| GitHub through git submodules.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| > You can run the code on GitHub Codespaces
|
| I think this would fall under "use" which I dispute the
| GitHub TOS allows.
|
| > and you can dynamically link ended the code in other
| projects on GitHub through git submodules.
|
| Sure. As long as you do not compile and run it, you can
| link it until you turn blue in the face.
| Sephr wrote:
| > As long as you do not compile and run it, you can link
| it until you turn blue in the face.
|
| With GitHub Codespaces and GitHub Actions you aren't
| compiling or running the code, GitHub is.
|
| From my understanding, this satisfies the following:
|
| > solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's
| functionality
| DangitBobby wrote:
| I don't really know much about CodeSpaces but yeah, if it
| is always run in a service provided by the GitHub
| ecosystem, you can probably run it. I don't know how
| useful that is. Also, it says you can fork it. It does
| not say you can modify it.
| chrisoverzero wrote:
| I told the judge that _I_ didn't kill anyone, the hitman
| I hired did! For some reason, he didn't see it as you do.
| [deleted]
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Somebody with codepilot to check it out?
| still_grokking wrote:
| I'm completely baffled how people work. Something like that can't
| actually happen. At least if you assume people working on
| software can read. But it seems not even this can be safely
| assumed nowadays.
|
| How can someone include some dependency without checking the
| license? That's actually the very first thing to do, before you
| can even consider using something!
|
| Not doing this is extremely unprofessional. Additionally it's
| stupid and very dangerous: You can bring yourself and/or your
| company into serous trouble. Really serous trouble.
|
| Do people really pull in some random stuff without even looking a
| little bit what it is? This would make the old write-up1 about
| someone placing the ultimate backdoor everywhere a certainty by
| now.
|
| Sorry for ranting but this whole thing is a real-world satire,
| imho. The license was a joke, OK. But that it didn't fool only
| some random hobby hacker but alleged professionals at big corps
| is truly egregious. I can't stop shaking my head...
|
| 1 https://medium.com/hackernoon/im-harvesting-credit-card-numb...
| mdoms wrote:
| A valid license does nothing to prevent supply chain attacks.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I never imagined that there would be a license designed so that
| only copyright violators have access to your project, but I
| support it and will probably use it. Any project I write that I
| think would be useful but is bad and I would never want to see
| shitting up Debian repos might get this.
|
| I like a license that says that I reserve the right to sue
| whoever I feel like suing. If you use it, make sure I don't feel
| like suing you (e.g. make no money) or that I can't catch you
| (i.e. be an outlaw.)
| DangitBobby wrote:
| One of the best things about people in software is (in my
| perception) they tend to want to share and share alike with
| open source and open licenses. Paid licenses also make sense to
| me, but it really bums me out in a way that I can't fully
| atriculate that the "neener neener" license is also apparently
| appealing to some people.
| bouk wrote:
| I love that all the discussion here is about the license I wrote
| and not about the actual project, which is a completely terrible
| idea and something I created as a lark.
|
| Why did I not spell this out in the blog post? For my own
| amusement. I also think it shows that licenses really don't
| matter all that much as some people think, they are not computer
| code.
| ayewo wrote:
| On the Internet, unless you sprinkle your words with emoticons,
| it is hard to convey irony or amusement using text alone.
|
| You absolutely have the power to end the controversy by
| switching to a more mainstream license then adding a clear
| disclaimer like "use at your own risk".
|
| GitHub currently lists 465 projects that depend on your
| library, which means more than a handful of devs find it
| useful.
| ivegotnoaccount wrote:
| I'm all for FOSS, but I fail to see how saying something like
| "There would be no problem if you accepted to release it with
| a less restrictive license" differs from saying that to a GPL
| library developer because proprietary code was found using
| it. Why should the first be considered "a controversy" but
| not the second ?
| dang wrote:
| Someone posted the actual project here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28266515 - but since both
| the url and the title of the OP are specifically about the
| license, it's not surprising that that was the topic.
| user5994461 wrote:
| >>> I also think it shows that licenses really don't matter all
| that much as some people think, they are not computer code.
|
| They matter as long you're willing to enforce them, and have
| the time and money to do so.
|
| In that case, you may be able to submit some form of take down
| request to GitHub against that project and other projects who
| are using your library.
|
| https://github.com/search?q=bouk%2Fmonkey&type=commits
|
| edit: wow, one of the projects that depended on your library
| was arduino up to 2020. https://github.com/arduino/arduino-
| cli/commit/09b4e8804fbd61...
|
| edit2: was also used by AWS up to last week when they removed
| it.
| https://github.com/awslabs/karpenter/commit/d84365e8c44178ea...
| user5994461 wrote:
| update: hit the jackpot
|
| the library is currently in use by Heroku/SalesForce to build
| deploy java apps (or something like that)
| https://github.com/heroku/java-buildpack/blob/master/go.mod
|
| I wonder what sort of settlement you could get if you were to
| send them a lawyer for real.
| jopsen wrote:
| I'm no lawyer, but don't you usually have to show damages?
| papercrane wrote:
| Statutory damages can apply, but in the US statutory
| damages for copyright infringement require registering
| the copyright prior to the infringement.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| Damages would be loss of revenue. He was deprived of the
| ability to negotiate terms of use for payment.
|
| This is why the GPL is more developer friendly than other
| licenses. If a business doesn't like the GPL you can
| offer to relicense your code, ... for money. And money is
| the restitution you seek when the license is violated.
| rob wrote:
| Welcome to America in one sentence.
| maxerickson wrote:
| They will be happy to cease use of the code.
|
| The damages probably amount to $0. "Don't use this code, no
| seriously don't" isn't exactly an advertisement of the
| value it provide.
| Macha wrote:
| They may already have, looks like that archived
| repository has been replaced with:
| https://github.com/heroku/heroku-buildpack-java
|
| which doesn't even use go.
|
| And they'd like you to even move away from that
| replacement to an ever newer replacement:
| https://github.com/heroku/buildpacks-jvm
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| "As a lark" would technically mean you did this while you were
| a bird. The correct idiom is "on a lark," though because of so
| much misusage the average person excuses "as a lark." Compare
| "I'm on line" vs "I'm in line," or "as per usual" vs "per
| usual" or "as usual."
| dcminter wrote:
| Where on earth did you get that notion from? Just because you
| use a particular phrase does not make it the only or the
| definitive version.
|
| On a lark, for a lark, as a lark, larking about, and so on
| are all common. It's not some obscure quotation or meaning,
| it's just a simile comparing with the bird (perceived as
| happy).
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| https://grammarist.com/phrase/on-a-lark/
|
| The "lark" in the idiom "on a lark" has nothing to do with
| a simile to birds. It derives from an old Norse word which
| means "to play."
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lark#Etymology_2
|
| Using correct terms helps to communicate effectively. What
| is wrong with promoting correct use of English? I always
| appreciate it when my coworkers promote correct programming
| idioms to me, it helps me become a better programmer.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > Using correct terms helps to communicate effectively.
| What is wrong with promoting correct use of English?
|
| As has been mentioned elsewhere, language is constantly
| changing. It isn't even that slow of a process. As a
| result the vast majority of linguists view linguistics as
| a descriptive rather than prescriptive science. The
| "prescriptive" approach to linguistics is much more
| common among teachers but hopefully that is also being
| tempered.
|
| The reason why this matters is because prescriptive
| approaches to language have a long history of being used
| to enforce class, ethnicity and geography based
| discrimination.
|
| I think there is a fine line to walk here. If you are
| going to fight against the changing of language, you need
| a good reason. I personally really dislike the confusion
| of "literal" and "figurative" (where "literal" now
| figuratively means "figurative") because it clearlt
| reduces the expressivity of the language. In contrast,
| the advent of "irregardless" doesn't reduce the
| expressivity of the language (though it foes add some
| minor complexity as it is an annoying exception in the
| meaning of the "ir" prefix.) Similarly, the common use of
| "me" instead of "I" in "and" clauses is commonly touted
| as a misuse of language even though I have never
| encountered as usage where it added ambiguity and is
| extremely common. I've had people tell me they take it as
| a marker of low intelligence while those same people will
| make a very similar mistake by switching "me" for
| "myself" in and clauses.
|
| I do think there is value in teaching people about the
| historical and cross-cultural uses of language, as this
| increases our ability to understand eachother. I also
| think there are times where we should push back against
| language shifts that descrease the effectiveness of the
| language. However, I think it has to be done with care to
| avoid perpetuating injustice and becoming irrelevant as
| the real language in use shifts.
|
| In your particular case, you seem to be denying the
| existence of fairly commonly used phrases that don't
| actually have any negative impact on the information
| carrying ability of the language.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| > prescriptive approaches to language have a long history
| of being used to enforce class, ethnicity and geography
| based discrimination.
|
| This is a sloppy argument. Nothing about teaching correct
| English enforces discrimination and in fact it does the
| opposite by leveling the playing field.
|
| If one day teachers stopped teaching grammar, that would
| only worsen the linguistic shift across the races and
| classes, allowing them to more easily discriminate
| between each other.
|
| Even if you want to erase the idea that there is a
| "correct" English, the inevitable presence of the
| differences in speech will regress the concept to "my
| tribe's English" and eventually "my tribe's language."
|
| Teaching and promoting a standard and correct English
| promotes a more liberal society. I'm puzzled that sloppy
| arguments like the one you made above continually
| permeate culture when it only takes a few logical steps
| to see how it results in an outcome opposite to what you
| want.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > "my tribe's English"
|
| That's where we are already. What you propose is forcing
| the other tribes to speak your tribe's english.
|
| I am not saying that there aren't advatages to teaching
| people about other tribe's dialects. If you combine that
| with inclusive policies you can merge dialects. When you
| enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude and alienate
| speakers of other dialects and this will INCREASE
| linguistic drift.
|
| I see nothing sloppy about my argument and I don't think
| that particular word (especially when you make no effort
| to explain what is "sloppy") is more of an ad hominem
| attack than perhaps you intended.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| It's sloppy because it's just a regurgitation of a
| talking point that has no logical basis. You and I both
| know that not teaching a standard English or pretending
| like one does not exist would only _worsen_ language-
| based discrimination.
|
| > When you enforce a specific dialect, then you exclude
| and alienate speakers of other dialects and this will
| INCREASE linguistic drift.
|
| How exactly would that happen? It would provide a means
| for other dialects to adopt the standard dialect and
| communicate with the wider community. That's the opposite
| of increasing linguistic drift. In the situation you're
| suggesting, you're expecting everyone to understand and
| communicate in every other dialect simultaneously. That's
| just an unrealistic expectation.
|
| > That's where we are already. What you propose is
| forcing the other tribes to speak your tribe's english.
|
| I propose everyone who desires to participate in the
| English-speaking world voluntarily unite and find
| consensus under standard English. Stop taking something
| personally that isn't personal and speak the standard
| English so that we may all better communicate and
| information can more freely disseminate across more
| populations.
|
| Imagine if people started making the argument that
| correcting incorrect Python was racist/classist and
| people should just start forking Python if they do not
| like standard Python. That would be silly yet that is
| what you are suggesting. Obviously having a single
| agreed-upon dialect of Python is beneficial to everyone
| and it shouldn't be personally offensive to recommend
| that people program in standard Python.
| dcminter wrote:
| Rant all you want, but if P.G.Wodehouse uses a phrase
| it's good enough for me.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| P.G.Wodehouse cites "for a lark" which is correct. He
| does not cite "as a lark" nor does your other source.
| dcminter wrote:
| Note that your etymology link agrees with mine (via
| skylark).
|
| OED cites P.G.Wodehouse (for a lark), and J.Krantz (of a
| lark).
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| The homophone with lark (the bird) likely reinforced the
| idiom but was probably not the origin of it. "For a lark"
| is correct as well, OED does not cite "as a lark."
|
| The phrase "as a lark" probably emerges as a mixture of
| "as a joke" and "on a lark."
| Twirrim wrote:
| "I did it as a lark" has been used as an expression for a
| long time already, well over a century.
|
| To give a few examples, https://www.google.com/books/edition/
| The_Boy_s_Own_Annual/X7...
|
| "Sure as goodness, I thought you both did it as a lark", from
| a book published in 1895, so it's reasonable to assume it was
| already in some level of common idiom by then. It's unlikely
| The Boys Own Annual was trail blazing in its use of language.
|
| Or https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Fortnightly_Revie
| w/... from 1929. "D you remember I got certified as a lunatic
| for trying to make a living by betting that one horse would
| reach a post before another, I admit it was silly, but I only
| did it as a lark"
|
| Language changes and evolves over time. You're attempting to
| be King Canute, except maybe one apparently deluded enough to
| believe the courtiers, only not as the tide is on the way in,
| but as the tide is long past and you've almost drowned.
|
| The ship sailed on the point you're making before you were
| even born.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| A few exceptional Google books searches does not prove the
| rule. Using correct English increases the chances that
| others will understand what we are saying, improving the
| chances of accomplishing our goals. What is wrong with
| helping others in that?
| Jarwain wrote:
| Does anyone actually use "as a lark" to mean the action
| was done while being a bird? Common usage these days is
| for "as a lark" to be effectively synonymous with "on a
| lark"; thus it would be more useful/helpful for people to
| be familiar with this variation of the common idiom.
| handelaar wrote:
| "On a lark" is something I (a native English speaker,
| from London, which is in England, _after which the
| language is named_ ) have _never_ heard or seen written
| -- anywhere -- before your ill-considered and wholly-
| incorrect posts on this thread.
|
| Shush.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| Not sure why new information has provoked such a personal
| response from you. As a native English speaker from
| London, have you heard of "as a lark"?
| stordoff wrote:
| Merriam-Webster and Cambridge both use "as a lark" in their
| online dictionaries:
|
| > on/as a lark idiom
|
| > US, informal
|
| > just as a way to have fun
|
| > She entered the race on/as a lark.
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/as%20a%20lark
|
| > lark noun [C] (ACTIVITY)
|
| > an activity done for enjoyment or amusement:
|
| > He started hang-gliding years ago as a lark.
|
| https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lark
| (definition from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary)
| Igelau wrote:
| For all extensive porpoises it means the same thing }:^)>
| jet_32951 wrote:
| Never seen that before: your coinage? If so I hope your
| license is a little more free than the OP's: I intend using
| it when I can get away with it.
| Andoryuuta wrote:
| I'm glad that I can now say that I've contributed Windows
| support to a project which I probably violated the license of
| while working on :P
|
| By technicality, the license has been violated by quite a large
| variety of corporations: Microsoft, AWS, Heroku, Bilibili,
| Baidu, Apache, Arduino, etc. [0~6], and much much more [7]
|
| Crazy.
|
| [0]:
| https://github.com/microsoft/bedrock/blob/a0ab244a80a94133cb...
|
| [1]: https://github.com/awslabs/karpenter/pull/609
|
| [2]: https://github.com/heroku/java-
| buildpack/blob/master/go.mod#...
|
| [3]:
| https://github.com/bilibili/overlord/blob/b524449801b5411583...
|
| [4]:
| https://github.com/baidu/openrasp/blob/f992962207bec063eda6f...
|
| [5]: https://github.com/apache/camel-k/issues/2067
|
| [6]: https://github.com/arduino/arduino-cli/issues/740
|
| [7]:
| https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+%28bou.ke%7C...
| gpm wrote:
| Eh, I feel like rewriting function pointers is a pretty
| standard trick, amusing (and definitely amusing that people are
| actually using it) but not terribly novel to the audience that
| finds these hacks amusing. Combined with the fact that the
| headline and issue is about the license/it takes multiple
| clicks to even find out what the library does, and it's not
| surprising that that's the focus.
| smsm42 wrote:
| License aren't computer code, they are social code. That
| matters more, not less, than computer code, at least until
| we're all disembodied brains in a large VR matrix - because
| usually people run code for people purposes, not the reverse.
| Coders frequently ignore this aspect, but not everybody has
| this luxury.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| I see no reason why disembodied brains wouldn't find a need
| for social agreements as well, it's not like the absence of
| _elan vital_ would cause them to cease being social. The
| content and mode of expression of those agreements might be
| quite different, of course.
|
| (We fleshbags could probably use more widespread application
| and understanding of formal language and notation as well--
| the most cumbersome description of linear interpolation I've
| ever seen was in the section on a real estate tax hike in the
| tax code; it had paragraphs! I mean, I feel for those who
| didn't have a good time in high-school algebra, but I don't
| see how they could reasonably deal with _that_ monstrosity
| either.)
| Fuzzeh wrote:
| That's because this thread is specifically about the license.
| [deleted]
| dahart wrote:
| The blog post and the README both seem to encourage use of the
| project. And a license that prevents all use including personal
| is very rare and not exactly in the spirit of GitHub. So I'm
| curious why both the blog and your README don't mention
| explicitly that you don't want allow use or explain why. Would
| it be worth putting something at the top of the README?
| kook_throwaway wrote:
| OP said: "I also think it shows that licenses really don't
| matter all that much as some people think". I doubt they
| would be unable to sleep at night because of a license
| violation.
| kodah wrote:
| > And a license that prevents all use including personal is
| very rare and not exactly in the spirit of GitHub
|
| Non-free licensed code has been on GitHub for quite some
| time. It's not only about free software and you should not
| assume so, as in all software.
|
| Edit: changed FOSS to "free"
| bo1024 wrote:
| Just to clarify, FOSS has significant provisions above and
| beyond allowing personal use. The term non-free is very
| different from "not allowed to use at all".
| kodah wrote:
| Yeap, you're right. There are lots of terms to describe
| free and non-free software. I meant "free" in any
| capacity, for clarification.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| So what of it? Show me a court verdict that throws the
| license out of the window because README led you to believe
| something.
|
| It would be an interesting precedent, forcing companies to
| comply with everything their advertisements say and doing
| away with any sort of fine print and ToS. I'm all for it, in
| fact. Total Ankh-Morporkization!
| brighton36 wrote:
| 'Intellectual Property' is mostly just post-modern nonsense.
| [deleted]
| zdw wrote:
| I've considered making a license that is basically MIT/BSD, but
| requires that anyone using an automated license
| checking/compliance system (any corporate users) to pay a fee
| to use the software.
| kodah wrote:
| Individuals run license checkers too.
|
| I would describe an end user count, revenue size, etc in
| order to apply special circumstances to corporations.
| Drone.io does a great job of this.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Instead of doing that, why not dual-license your program
| under CC-BY-NC and AGPLv3, and then sell exceptions?
| nzmsv wrote:
| A lot of legal departments have a mental image of AGPL (and
| GPL) as a bogeyman that will steal all the company's code
| if allowed anywhere near the building. I've sat through a
| presentation one time that tried to paint these licenses as
| something only basement dwellers use for personal projects.
| I spoke to the presenter afterwards and told them about
| projects like Linux and Mongo, and how even AGPL is not as
| scary as they thought.
|
| The lawyer seemed genuinely surprised and said they would
| read up on it. I'm pretty sure my bringing this up in a
| friendly manner caused them to question their assumptions.
| Had I picked a fight during the presentation I'd just be
| labeled a basement dweller.
|
| However, this lawyer also told me something interesting. To
| some extent it doesn't matter whether I was able to change
| his mind. As long as other lawyers in the field have this
| bogeyman concept in mind, the use of GPL will get flagged
| in due diligence, etc. and it's easier to simply not use a
| component with strong copyleft when developing a product
| (unless it's as irreplaceable as Linux).
|
| This is a long-winded way of saying that selling exceptions
| will likely scare off potential purchasers long before they
| are in a position to consider the purchase. Most shops have
| a blanket "no GPL ever" policy and a dev won't even bother
| with the component even for a prototype.
| robocat wrote:
| My personal experience as a developer and owner is that
| it is very difficult and time consuming to understand the
| risks and to comprehend the *GPL licences.
|
| For example, using an LGPL based JavaScript library just
| leaves me confused every time. I read the LGPL 3.0, read
| some stack overflow answers, and read the GNU website.
| Yet I am left without being 100% certain that I can
| minify the LGPL JavaScript into a single file with my own
| source code (because JavaScript is not object code, and
| because sending JavaScript to the browser is
| distribution).
|
| With BSD/MIT licences everything is clear and less
| ambiguous, and if I get something wrong then it is
| usually something easy to fix.
|
| If I were a general counsel, I wouldn't trust all my
| developers to follow the GPL licenses properly nor would
| I trust developers to correctly avoid simple mistakes. A
| default ban limits liability, reduces risks of negative
| publicity, and anyone that needs an exception has to
| justify it.
|
| Idealistically, I love the GPL, and I truely believe in
| the goal of share and share alike.
|
| Practically I understand why following the *GPL licences
| is difficult and that it involves multiple risks for a
| business, and so many commercial businesses sensibly
| prefer to avoid the costs.
| bhaak wrote:
| Why do you think that only corporate users use an automated
| license checking/compliance system?
|
| If you do personal projects that are open source it's equally
| important to know what licenses your dependencies have if you
| release those projects to the public.
| Vinnl wrote:
| The primary difference is that as an individual, you can
| easily add that new licence to your allowlist. In an
| enterprise, it might be easier to fork over the money
| rather than convincing legal to allow your use of the
| software.
| oaiey wrote:
| License checking is like code coverage. A part of our
| profession. It is not only for corporate users.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Yeah, I looked at your project, and immediately wondered why
| the fact that someone merged a patch using it at all wasn't the
| suspect issue...
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| GitHub terms of service [1]:
|
| "If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly,
| you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license
| to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub
| Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as
| permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through
| forking)."
|
| I think these override it?
|
| [1] https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-
| terms-o...
| oaiey wrote:
| No it does not. This statement is exclusively for the fact that
| GitHub and a reader is not liable for showing/reading your
| copyrighted code.
|
| The only weak spot is GitHub Actions/Code spaces/etc for dev
| tools I guess. Because that falls under "GitHub service" and is
| a functionality of it.
| bscphil wrote:
| No, this would also seem to protect users who click the
| "fork" button on Github. It would _not_ , however, allow them
| to clone the software to their local computer or use it for
| any other purpose.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| The Github terms do not indicate that the license is
| transferable. Github can display the code, but even if
| someone downloads from Github, they still can't use it.
| gpm wrote:
| I am not a lawyer... There may be an argument here that
|
| 1. GitHub has a valid license to distribute it (as a result of
| their TOS)
|
| 2. Running the downloaded code is not copyright infringement (or
| not obviously so, and hasn't been established as so in any court
| that I am aware of)
|
| 3. Using the APIs is not copyright infringement (see Oracle v
| Google, if that was fair use this almost certainly is)
|
| Thus no copyright infringement has occurred.
|
| Still, keeping this in the codebase is at _best_ boobytrapping
| your code to create accidental future instances of copyright
| infringement, and it 's an interesting case of people not
| checking licenses (since it's pretty clear they didn't realize
| this in advance).
| oaiey wrote:
| Regards (3): have not they have a dependency on the
| implementation? Oracle/Google was about the interface and the
| design of the API interface not the implementation.
| gpm wrote:
| They do, it's not an entirely identical situation, I believe
| it is analogous though.
|
| The question I'm addressing in 3 is whether or not the source
| code becomes a derivative work of the dependency (meaning
| writing it in the first place would be illegal). The only
| portion of the dependency that the source code copied was the
| names of a few functions/modules (part of the API). Copying
| that part of the API into the work seems very analagous to
| the Oracle/Google case, except even less was copied and it is
| even less of a market place competitor (but again, I'm not a
| lawyer).
| balfirevic wrote:
| > 1. GitHub has a valid license to distribute it (as a result
| of their TOS)
|
| From the GitHub TOS someone posted:
|
| "... license to use, display, and perform Your Content through
| the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on
| GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for
| example, through forking)"
|
| I'm not sure if cloning from GitHub to your local computer
| falls under "reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as
| permitted through GitHub's functionality" (due to "solely on
| GitHub" part).
| gpm wrote:
| I'm not completely sure either, I don't think you would get a
| definitive answer short of litigating it (and let's be
| honest, no one is litigating over this).
|
| (Again, not a lawyer, not super familiar with this part of
| copyright law, but...) I'd argue that the copy is made on
| githubs server and then sent to me, and I simply move the
| sole copy around (or to the extent that I make a new copy it
| is a lawful copy of the network traffic for archival purposes
| under 17 USC 117 (a) (2)). That "git clone" is clearly a
| integral part of githubs service so the license is clearly
| intended to cover it. That "git clone" is not meaningfully
| different from "wget" from "a web browser" - again the
| license is clearly intended to cover this. That any liability
| that does exist falls on GitHub as the party making the copy.
|
| I'm not sure which if any of those arguments would convince a
| court though
| pabs3 wrote:
| I wonder what happens when I upload to GitHub code that I have
| permission to distribute, but that I don't own, that GitHub
| doesn't have permission to distribute and I don't have
| permission to give others permission to distribute.
| innocenat wrote:
| Then you cannot grant such right to GitHub, thus, you cannot
| post to GitHub.
| gpm wrote:
| I do wonder about things like the linux kernel being
| uploaded to github though... it doesn't seem like all the
| contributors consented to giving GitHub this license.
| antoinealb wrote:
| Those rights are a subset of those granted by the GPL2,
| aren't they ?
| gpm wrote:
| I don't believe so, since the GPL (like most licenses)
| conditions those rights on things like keeping the
| license intact. Also the GPL doesn't actually say
| anything about performance or display (which may or may
| not matter).
| ErikCorry wrote:
| Github has a valid license to distribute it but you are not
| Github so that doesn't give you a right to anything. In
| particular it doesn't give you a right to download it.
| dahart wrote:
| > In particular it doesn't give you a right to download it
|
| That sentence is wrong, GitHub's terms of service explicitly
| give users a right to download, and also run, the code of any
| project that is publicly visible. Please read the terms,
| especially section D "5. License Grant to Other Users".
| https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-
| terms-o...
| teraflop wrote:
| Those terms don't say anything about a right to "download
| and also run" code:
|
| > you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide
| license to use, display, and perform Your Content _through
| the GitHub Service_ and to reproduce Your Content _solely
| on GitHub as permitted through GitHub 's functionality_
|
| (emphasis mine)
| dahart wrote:
| "Display", "Use", and "View" are all terms that are all
| talking about downloading. "Perform" means to run the
| code. You are still using the GitHub service when you
| clone a GitHub repo locally, that is part of GitHub's
| functionality. What it's _not_ saying is that the only
| way to view a project is via an http connection through a
| browser to github.com.
| mrpimpunicorn wrote:
| "Perform" means to run the code THROUGH GitHub and its
| services (i.e. Actions). You are NOT allowed to run the
| code on any hardware YOU own. Downloading is an
| implementation detail of performing your right to
| "Display", "Use", and "View" the content ON GitHub and
| its services. You are forbidden from downloading the
| content for any other purpose.
| dahart wrote:
| > You are NOT allowed to run the code on any hardware YOU
| own.
|
| Sure you are, that is just not true.
|
| > You are forbidden from downloading the content for any
| other purpose
|
| The rights GitHub grants allow a copy to be made. What
| you can't do is redistribute the code, that part is
| clear. But what you do with it on your machine when not
| showing it to anyone else is not prohibited by GitHub's
| terms, nor by copyright law. I've read both. If you have
| too, and believe otherwise, please cite the relevant
| sections.
| nerdponx wrote:
| The license forbids _use_. The project is (or was) clearly
| _using_ it. GitHub is irrelevant.
| gpm wrote:
| The license has no legal authority to forbid that which is
| not forbidden by law and/or permitted by other licenses the
| author has granted. (See other discussions here for arguments
| as to whether or not it has that legal authority)
| jatone wrote:
| github TOS do not grant you use of others code. it grants
| distribution. those are two very different things.
| gpm wrote:
| See this sibling thread:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28265245
|
| I am contending (with citations to the law) that you
| simply don't need a license to execute other peoples code
| once you legally have a copy of it.
| cxr wrote:
| This would have been a mostly benign comment had you not thrown
| in the bad take about Oracle v. Google. There are enough of
| those on the Internet already.
| gpm wrote:
| Care to share your objection to it?
| cxr wrote:
| Not particularly. For further inquiries, refer to the about
| section of my HN profile.
|
| You can also refer to this thread and pay particular
| attention to toyg's response.
|
| <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27687960>
| gpm wrote:
| > Unlikely to respond to replies. (A tip for the
| intellectually dishonest: you can seize this opportunity
| to get the last word in.)
|
| Lol (quoting your profile here since I think it's fair to
| give other people the expectation that you won't engage)
|
| > toyg's response.
|
| I both agree with his reponse and would categorize my use
| of the case here as within that (the only code _copied_
| out of the dependency is API related).
|
| I can't force you to debate this, but I also have to say
| I don't think casting vague aspirations without an
| explanation is a useful form of comment.
| HomeDeLaPot wrote:
| I think GitHub gives you the right to download or fork the
| repo, but the license explicitly states that you can't use the
| code. That might mean running it on its own is technically
| illegal.
|
| The license literally says "you can't use this". How are so
| many people confused about the license in this thread?
| gpm wrote:
| > That might mean running it on its own is technically
| illegal.
|
| Based on what law/authority?
|
| Copyright law forbids making copies, derivative works, etc.
| Not using things. You're allowed to read a book without a
| license.
|
| Moreover copyright law makes an explicit exception for the
| copies required to run a computer program on a machine that
| aren't used in other ways (i.e. copying it to ram/registers):
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
|
| The author may say "you can't use this", but it is not clear
| to me that he has any legal authority to do so.
| ectopod wrote:
| That is not a blanket exemption. It is for "the owner of a
| copy of a computer program".
|
| If you stole a copy of Microsoft Office on CD from a shop
| (back when that was a thing) it seems clear that using the
| software would have been a copyright infringement because
| you wouldn't have been the owner.
|
| In this case you have the right to download the software
| (via the github agreement) but how does that relate to
| ownership and the legal exemption? I've no idea.
| gpm wrote:
| I believe "owner" here is just referring to classical
| property rights, you literally own the magnetized platter
| which encodes the program, like you literally own the ink
| and paper that makes up a book. Once you've downloaded
| the software you have a version of it on your hard disk
| (or ssd) that you literally "own" (but you don't own the
| copyright to it).
| inopinatus wrote:
| Quite so. As written, it's a null statement. To be
| enforceable, a license has to be written by one party such
| that another party may acquire rights in exchange for
| accepting the terms. This is how licenses become contracts.
|
| Simply reading the words "Don't use it" does not bind you,
| because there is no grant of use; there is no offer or
| exchange of value, so no contract has been formed, and the
| statement is at best advisory. It is equal to writing "All
| rights reserved", which is to say, you retain whatever
| rights pre-existed under statutory and common law, such as
| right of fair use and so forth, and anything due to
| Github's ToS.
|
| Engineers often fall into the trap of thinking the law is a
| programming language. It isn't, mercifully.
| JackFr wrote:
| As pointed out in other comments, music and drama are
| exceptions to this where their 'use' is protected by
| copyright. You can read a play aloud if you like, but you
| can't perform it publicly without permission (or
| royalties).
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| DangitBobby wrote:
| It's due in part to the absurdity of of publicly sharing
| something and then declaring "neener neener you can't use
| this." It's seemingly contradictory to open-source something
| that you forbid the use of.
| avodonosov wrote:
| Is the "I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any
| purpose. Don't use it." actually a forbidding, strictly speaking?
| Filligree wrote:
| The default is that you're not allowed to use it. There needs
| to be an explicit grant of license to change that, and there's
| not.
| avodonosov wrote:
| Do you refer any specific law?
| bouk wrote:
| It's called 'Copyright'
| mgraczyk wrote:
| A long time ago I implemented a similar (less flexible) thing for
| C, also as a sort of goofy learning experience:
|
| https://github.com/mgraczyk/fast_check_once/blob/master/fast...
|
| There's something really appealing about replacing code at
| runtime to "hack" the bypass normal behavior of the language. For
| testing/mocking this can even be useful.
| foreigner wrote:
| This is just mean! The documentation definitely reads like the
| library is meant for use, but the author forbids all use in the
| license.
| elric wrote:
| Why is it mean? The author can use whatever license they like.
| If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to release your
| own code under a more permissive license.
| secondaryacct wrote:
| He can but it's still mean. It's like I can call you an
| autist bitch and still be mean :(
| Macha wrote:
| It's misleading to present the project as being for use by
| others and then forbid any use in the legal print?
| Thiez wrote:
| Is it misleading to present a project as free and then have
| the (A)GPL license? Here I thought it was free, now
| suddenly there are all these conditions...
|
| The "legal print" in this case is five lines long, written
| in (contrary to most licenses) very plain english, located
| in the root of the repository, in a file named
| 'LICENSE.md'. It's not exactly hidden where a reasonable
| person might overlook it. "We didn't know" isn't a very
| convincing defense.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Yes. It is misleading to advertise software as Free and
| Open when it's actually Copy Left.
| seppoonbi3 wrote:
| It is clearly meant for use. Those two things are not in
| contradiction and it's quite often that good software is
| spoiled with bad license. If you have to know, the secret is
| not to respect the made up license. Pls give downvote, copying
| is stealing.
| somehnacct3757 wrote:
| No problem, just start typing code like it and let Github Copilot
| handle the rest
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| Even better, Fairuseify[1] will repackage a fair-use version of
| the library for you automatically.
|
| [1]: https://fairuseify.ml/
| still_grokking wrote:
| Ingenious!
|
| It only needs some build-in YouTube and Getty-Images browser
| to select fairuseify targets. (It should work for all kind of
| media, of course).
|
| I think we've solved the copyright issue right now finally
| for good, didn't we?
| SergeAx wrote:
| Using monkey patching is an awful idea and always means your code
| architecture is bad. Will not be surprised if this message was
| the original author's intent.
|
| Edit: it actually was:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28265605
| wheybags wrote:
| Side note, but for all the people saying this is absolutely
| godawful and the license is OK because no one in their right mind
| would use it in production, this project from MS does basically
| the same thing: https://www.microsoft.com/en-
| us/research/project/detours/
|
| Recently open sourced, but has been used for twenty years in real
| products from MS and others. It's not so crazy as you might
| think!
|
| An example of a real use I had for it: redirecting messages from
| OutputDebugString to a log file. AFAIK that is the best way to do
| it, when you only want the output from your one process. "Why not
| just call a proper logging function directly instead?" Because
| the OutputDebugString calls were coming from inside my GPU
| driver. Real life is not some ivory tower of perfection. An
| imperfect world requires imperfect solutions.
| tptacek wrote:
| I've done a lot of work with Detours and have written my own
| trampoline injection thingies in Python and Ruby, and this
| approach is not really a reasonable way to build production
| software. A proof-of-concept Detours implementation posted as
| an illustration for an amusing blog post may be the most
| perfect possible use case for a "you are not allowed to use
| this for anything" license, maybe rivaled only by the code you
| post for a cipher you designed yourself.
| woodruffw wrote:
| The key difference being that Detours is a library written by
| Microsoft engineers with access to the Win32 team and the
| ability (if not drive) to ensure that Detours functions
| correctly as changes are made. Those changes are also probably
| pretty rare, given Win32's famously stable ABI.
|
| This library patches a third party runtime, one that
| _explicitly_ forbids this kind of instrumentation and has a
| famously _unstable_ ABI.
|
| You can do whatever you want to get your job done, and this is
| certainly one way to do it, but it's absolutely a dangerous
| hack.
| reificator wrote:
| To anyone else confused as I was, "this project from MS does
| basically the same thing" is referring to monkeypatching a
| running executable, not having a license that forbids use of
| the software.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-22 23:01 UTC)