> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:29:00PM -0500, John Stoffel wrote:
>>>>>> "Klaus" == Klaus Ethgen <klaus+gee...@ethgen.de> writes:
>Klaus> Today I found that github changed their term of service effectively for
>Klaus> today.[0]
>Klaus> The new term of service seems to be a bit problematic and disallows to
>Klaus> have geeqie on github. Or better said, geeqies license (GPL) is
>Klaus> incompatible to github term of service.
>Klaus> I am no native English speaker and also no lawyer, but there is
>Klaus> a good analysis[1] describing the problems.
>No, there is one person's analysis of the problem, and who doesn't
>talk about the issue in a legal manner.  When someone throws around
>phrases like "it's now illegal" when a site changes it's terms of
>service, then the stupdity is flowing.  
>Klaus> Please have a look and comment. I think, the only way is to
>Klaus> remove geeqie completely from github. And please don't push any
>Klaus> content to github (the original geeqie repository is ok) unless
>Klaus> the issue is cleared. It seems that until we continue _using_
>Klaus> github, we agree with the new term of service, what we might
>Klaus> not be able to do.
>I don't know why you think these terms change anything?  It's just a
>way for github to cover themselves from lawsuits if someone takes and
>posts on github stuff they don't own.
>It's not suddenly making GPL software illegal on there at all.  Its
>like the terms and service agreements that lots and lots of other
>sites have in place as well.
>Please do not freak out over this, do not stop people from pushing
>stuff to github, and certainly do not apply the flaky reasoning of
>just one non-lawyer's opinion to this project.
>If they don't like the terms of service, then fine, they can move
>their project(s) elsewhere.  Big deal.
>Basically, all github is saying that when you push stuff up there,
>it's publiclly available and that you give them the right to make it
>visible to others.  It's *your* job to make sure you have the right to
>do so, not theirs.

I'm no lawyer nor have I read the changes, but continueing a service after a 
change in legal terms is emplaced, could be construed as the customer agreeing 
to the new terms of service.  This is likely why Klaus (likely wisely) stated 
not to make any further commits to GitHub until he receives clarification.

If I'm not mistaken, Klaus is the big guy (or the party responsible), so things 
will likely go as he wishes.

I frequently encounter poor legal advice, and many people or corporations think 
they can do something when they really cannot do something legally.  And, a lot 
of people like to utilize fear tactics in an attempt to deter some apparent 
undesirable activity, again illegal in some or many States or Countries.

I do not think it has been so long that, many have not forgotten the horrid 
tactics sf.net enstated not so long ago!

This is one of the reasons why I would use a private server or private shell 
account for publicizing a software project, versus using something like github, 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Geeqie-devel mailing list

Reply via email to