www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Is GitHub forking subject to clause 4b?
Date Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:06:40 GMT
+1

> On Dec 27, 2016, at 10:42 PM, Luis Villa <luis@lu.is> wrote:
> 
> The only "relevant" parties are, of course, the copyright holders. With that disclaimer,
as a legal professional, I agree with Jim* that a public GitHub fork is almost certainly**
a distribution by the forking party.***
> 
> Luis****
> 
> * Also a legal professional! 
> ** "distribution" and "making available" are actually a somewhat contested area of the
law right now, particularly in the US, so YMMV. 
> *** By GitHub too, but they're probably protected by the DMCA. 
> **** Feeling a little silly tonight, so sue me.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016, 9:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Jim Wright <jim.wright@oracle.com> wrote:
> > I believe there are many people who would disagree with the proposition that deliberately
> > placing code in a publicly accessible repository is not distribution if one or more
people
> > actually download it from there.  If you want to treat it as not distributed, I
would suggest
> > you put it in a private repo.
> 
> I think the important question is how many of those many people are
> relevant legal
> professionals.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message