Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by wejick | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

wejick

I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it.

I’m not interested in changing this license. Please don’t ask.

View on HN

If it keeps this out of production in even a handful of companies, that's probably a good thing in aggregate.

It's a neat blog post, shows interesting internals, and no - you should not do it.

https://github.com/bouk/monkey/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Then why publish the blog post and put it into a package??

Look, don’t touch.

clearly satire

Which part and in what way? Clearly the blog post is not satire, since the method works, and the license cannot be satire as it seems like it would be legally sufficient to prevent people from using it, which is exactly the stated purpose of the license. It's also implied that the author has received requests to change the license so others can use the package, which have been denied. The author even went so far as to remind people in this comment thread that they don't want it to be used! The license is serious on its face and in practice. Where is the joke?

Your reaction is the joke

Sure. It is a "joke" until you're tempted to sue a big enough fish that falls for it and get some people fired. Pathetic.

Hilarious.

You're a joke.

Somebody with codepilot to check it out?

You have the right to use this project via git submodules. The GitHub terms of service requires code owners to allow forking and linking to their public repositories, regardless of license.

It does not appear to grant (or attempt to grant) use of the software. So sharing and forking are fine, but not necessarily anything else.

> 5. License Grant to Other Users

> Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).

> If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users

> So sharing and forking are fine, but not necessarily anything else.

Did I imply otherwise? Git submodules are just links. Please explain how linking to a submodule is not allowed.

Well, I thought the purpose of linking in git submodules was to compile the source code and then use it. The "using it" is not granted by the GitHub license. Did I misunderstand your original point? If not, the verbiage "use this project via git submodules" which uses the word "use" was the source of my confusion.

Was someone disputing the right of OP to share a link to the blog post or the repository?

You said it yourself: GitHub users can use GitHub projects on GitHub. Git submodules stay on GitHub, so it's allowed.

> you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking)

You can run the code on GitHub Codespaces & GitHub Actions, you can fork the code to make changes, and you can dynamically link/embed the code in other projects on GitHub through git submodules.

> You can run the code on GitHub Codespaces

I think this would fall under "use" which I dispute the GitHub TOS allows.

> and you can dynamically link ended the code in other projects on GitHub through git submodules.

Sure. As long as you do not compile and run it, you can link it until you turn blue in the face.

> As long as you do not compile and run it, you can link it until you turn blue in the face.

With GitHub Codespaces and GitHub Actions you aren't compiling or running the code, GitHub is.

From my understanding, this satisfies the following:

> solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality

I don't really know much about CodeSpaces but yeah, if it is always run in a service provided by the GitHub ecosystem, you can probably run it. I don't know how useful that is. Also, it says you can fork it. It does not say you can modify it.

I told the judge that I didn’t kill anyone, the hitman I hired did! For some reason, he didn’t see it as you do.

Performing those actions on GitHub isn't important because it allows you to technically bypass a restriction by having a third party do it (which I agree is a poor defense) but because the author explicitly relinquished some rights by putting the project on GitHub.

the author does not relinquish rights to run the code. running it on a third party service does not magically launder the license.

> does not relinquish the rights to run the code

I don't think anyone who's posted so far is a lawyer, but the claim is precisely that GitHub's ToS do relinquish the rights to run the code, so long as you only do so on GitHub and through their published interface.

GitHub ToS> If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking).

> running it on a third party service does not magically launder the license

Totally agreed. By uploading to GitHub publicly you've granted an _additional_ license and asserted that you had the legal right to do so. It's kind of like when open source projects will also sell a proprietary license on request -- companies aren't magically beholden to the GPL'd version just because it exists somewhere; they get to choose which of their available licenses they'd prefer to use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com