[ormaaj]

Funny they specifically point to Gentoo. Gentoo, organizations hosting mirrors, and users are probably least likely of all to be affected by such a situation (binhosts aside) as gentoo only distributes the verbatim source for which the uploader (assuming same as copyright holder) has granted an implied license by way of publishing their work to github. It would be very difficult to claw back their intent to offer the code for public use given the context of a forum principally devoted to collaborative development of open-source works.

Also no clue why the author believes static linking or any technical means of linkage of the compiled binaries would be in any way relevant to distribution of the unlicensed source code. No doubt all of this work is unregistered too. Have fun arguing for actual damages caused by a clearly deliberate publishing and distribution of an unregistered work.

[nextaccountic]

The implied license you give when uploading to Github is this https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

> 4. License Grant to Us

> We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.

> This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service, except that as part of the right to archive Your Content, GitHub may permit our partners to store and archive Your Content in public repositories in connection with the GitHub Arctic Code Vault and GitHub Archive Program.

Unfortunately this implied license is only granted to Github itself. Maybe this could work if Github created their own version of Gentoo though.

[ormaaj]

That is a contract, not a license. Or more accurately it's a contract with a copyright license embedded within its terms. This is an agreement with github to grant it an explicit license. Implied license is an implicit license. It may exist irrespective to any such agreements. Its implicit creation is an affirmative defense determined entirely by other factors and context.

The bar for this as a defense can be quite high, as it requires a clear intention to license the work as determined by a judge or jury.

Independent to the implied license doctrine there exists doctrine which governs mirroring, caching, and transferring of that content by 3rd parties and intermediaries. The combination of these is largely what makes sharing anything on the internet in lieu of licenses possible.

"user agreements" or "terms of use" are contracts that are essentially a redundant measure that gives parties like github much stronger protection, so that it doesn't have to rely upon any risky affirmative defense tactics that require meeting high legal thresholds.