[chad-autry]

pfffft Bunch of yammering without any good analysis. Disappointing.

The new terms don't do anything except make explicit what they were already doing.

D.7 + D.4: They were already doing activities these terms explicitly give them the right to do. They are internally copying (backups), modifying (compressing and indexing), and displaying anything uploaded. If having it spelled out violates your license, I don't see how them just doing it without having it spelled out doesn't also violate the license. Maybe this just shifts where the license violation is occurring from GitHub's doing to a user's uploading, but it doesn't change the fact that a license is being violated somewhere on either the old or new terms.

D.5: This section was already in the old terms! The new terms actually clarify and limit what they mean by "fork". It still doesn't give the forking user a right to modify, just create their own copy within the context of GitHub. You already granted users the right to "fork" anything publicly submitted under the old terms.

D.3: The rant (the writers own tag, but I find it appropriate) is just nitpicking here. It om-mitts the reason why they would remove content, which is because it violates their policies. GitHub needs this right to enforce their content restrictions. Also, if GitHub ends up removing partial content such that it violates the license it was submitted with YOU aren't the one breaking the license. They are.

[cannam]

I think you're right, but even if they were effectively doing these things already, it does seem likely that individual users don't actually have the ability to give permission for them (on behalf of other contributors to their repos). I guess previously we just had a potential legal quagmire that most people were happy to edge around, blithely whistling.

[hobarrera]

Yeah, the interesting detail is, though, that what they were doing was possibly illegal.

I wonder how this affects other similar services (eg: GitLab).

[kuschku]

The problem is this.

I have repositories that include code I forked which is required to have attribution.

Before the change, GitHub was violating the license (and potentially covered by fair use).

After the change, I am now violating the license, and granting something to GitHub which I don’t even have.

[majewsky]

> modifying (compressing and indexing)

Is this really modification in terms of copyright law? (Honest question. I'm only passingly familiar with copyright law.)

[Hello71]

I believe the general consensus is "it is not clear at this time".