[Benjamin_Dobell]

Technically everyone using Rails right now may be in violation of the GPL. It doesn't matter that the version of the gem being used claims to be MIT, that's not how licensing/copyright works.

Github Enterprise licensees could try hit-up GitHub for source code!

EDIT: License in question is GPL, not Affero GPL. So github.com is not covered. However, Github Enterprise is.

In all likelihood, Github wouldn't comply, as Github Enterprise licensees have no such license/clause in effect with Github. It'd then be down to the shared-mime-info's copyright holders to take the matter to court.

Would be an interesting court case.

Some people in the Github issue commented that the XML "database" in question could be used under fair use. That'd be the logical defense. There's been many court cases where the "copyrighted material" is a representation of facts, as opposed to a "creative work", and thus has not been eligible for copyright protection.

It's probably also worth noting that "ignorance" is rarely an accepted defense in court.

[crazypython]

> everyone using Rails right now is in violation of the GPL.

Not if your use of Rails is limited to your own/your company's own servers, which I imagine most Rails users are. Please don't fall for the flamebait.

If they were using GPLv3, they would have an entire month (30 days) to cure the violation.

GitHub Enterprise is in violation as it is distributed to third-parties.

[Benjamin_Dobell]

Thanks, edited for clarity. In this case it's GPLv2, so no "cure the violation" clause.

However, even if this were GPLv3, and you were to "cure the violation" that only reinstates your license i.e. the GPLv3 license. Replacing a dependency won't make previously infringing releases any less infringing.