[userbinator]

I hope this gets mirrored somewhere else, because I don't trust GitHub to not cave in to legal demands despite RE being legal regardless of EULA in parts of the world, and the extra attention this gets may otherwise kill it.

[kodablah]

From what I've seen, GitHub will only respond to a DMCA request for takedown, and Google very rarely files those (I think I saw one in the GitHub DMCA notice repo for an entire internal published source repo once, could be misremembering). Google doesn't usually fight with lawyers instead of tech (e.g. making scraping more difficult).

Not saying you shouldn't fork or fear, but GitHub and Google are generally good actors compared to others.

[ashleyn]

Definitely had the same observation that Google prefers subterfuge through obscurity/difficulty as opposed to legal methods. Their open source projects are notoriously impossible to build.

[cronix]

Yes, but MS now owns Github and MS might have a different viewpoint in terms of copyright than GH has traditionally had.

[kuhhk]

Why do you suspect that?

[tribby]

I can't speak for OP, but microsoft hasn't had the best relationship with open source in the past,[1] and they are a pretty litigious company.[2] however, their strategy seems to have changed significantly in recent years and I seriously doubt they will change how github operates. if anything, github has improved since it was acquired.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation

[feikname]

Not OP, but I'd say because IIRC it's now a different CEO.

[cronix]

MS has traditionally been a software company, and has a LOT of court experience over the last 40 years regarding copyright and lawsuits when it comes to code and IP. I just think they might have a different viewpoint than GH has traditionally had, since GH's business is completely different than traditional MS businesses. The post I was responding to was talking about GH in the past and what they might do based on that. I'm just saying there's a recently new owner who might look at it differently, so past behavior might not be the best indicator for this since it's being run by a different corporation now.

[johannes1234321]

Since they are a different sort of company, with another legal attack surface.

Going after GitHub means that GitHub has to shut down and the opponent sticks with their legal costs.

When attacking Microsoft they have enough cash to pay you out (in case they lose or they accept a payment to make you shut up) and the case might disrupt Microsoft enough to give you an advantage in a different field.

Not saying that Google would sue Microsoft. Would be very bad for their image. But a risk evaluation is different.

[ec109685]

You think google is going to send a cease and desist letter to github based on someone’s work reverse engineering google’s App in Chrome?

And if they do that, nobody will have a copy of this source code?

[dpq]

> You think google is going to send a cease and desist letter to github

Wouldn't be the first time, either: https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-shuts-down-gaia-efforts...

TL;DR: They shut down an open source GEarth clone called Gaia a decade ago, although they managed to not to lose a lot of karma over that due to graceful handling.

[ec109685]

Touché

[gammateam]

Just clone it and move on

I do that for anything that looks predictably hot