[baobabKoodaa]

> So you're suggesting GitHub should determine the total "average" license of a private repo and determine if your fork is indeed valid or not, before revoking access.

No, I'm not suggesting that. In fact, I didn't say anything about what GitHub should or shouldn't do. My comment related to how licenses work, not how GitHub works or should work.

In particular, I was responding to this comment:

> It's not your code or data, it's your previous employers IP and they determine who has access and who doesn't and what licenses do or don't apply.

The claim in the above comment is incorrect. I stated that the claim is incorrect. That is unrelated to the issue of how GitHub should deal with private repo forks.

[pavon]

You mentioned in another post that the company only released a cleaned up version publicly. That cleaned up code which they published is clearly and unambiguously under the MIT license. Any other modifications that were made and not published (including any you made in your fork as an employee) are not automatically licensed as MIT. Your employer holds the copyright to that. They might be fine with those internal changes being released as MIT or they might not, but it is up to them.

[baobabKoodaa]

If the private repo had the MIT license in it, then it was licensed with the MIT license, regardless of how widely or publicly the repo was distributed.

[pavon]

It isn't that clear-cut. A license is a legal grant of rights from the copyright holder to the licensee. A license file is just documentation. A repo can have different parts that are covered by difference licenses and there are different ways to mark the licenses, whether in the text of each file itself, or other top-level files that document the status. It is also fine for internal working copies to not have all their licensing documentation perfectly applied the instant a file is created. In particular, in many companies, individual software developers don't have authority to license software on behalf of the company who owns the copyright, and so any markings they place in the repo are just tentative drafts pending legal review. So in the context of a private working copy, the existence of a license file doesn't have a ton of legal weight. What matters is when the copyright holder chooses to grant a license, via whomever the company gives authority to do so.

Once the organization publishes the software to others, whatever license documentation they include with it is binding, unless other issues trump that (like them not holding the copyright to begin with).

[Dylan16807]

That's not true. I can go put the MIT license text in every folder on my computer and it won't actually apply the license to anything.

[baobabKoodaa]

Ok, it's not true in the general case, but it's true in this specific case. The project was intended to be an open source project from the beginning; we were intending to open source everything.