Timeline for "Who Wrote This?" and What Do We Actually Consider Authorship?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2018 at 21:04 | comment | added | Peilonrayz Mod | @Mat'sMug If they make it CC BY-SA compatible, then I, as I put on the question, have no problem. As there is no license or rule violation | |
| Feb 26, 2018 at 21:01 | comment | added | Mathieu Guindon Mod | @Peilonrayz then I hope this will help | |
| Feb 26, 2018 at 20:58 | comment | added | Vogel612 | The Github TOS disagree. see specifically section D 5 of the TOS where it states that: "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)" | |
| Feb 26, 2018 at 20:26 | comment | added | Peilonrayz Mod | @Mat'sMug I think it's wrong to assume everything is CC0 / IDGAF be default, as at no point has the poster given away rights to their IP. You can post closed source code on GitHub, but that means it's easy for people to steal your code, so isn't common. | |
| Feb 26, 2018 at 20:22 | comment | added | Mathieu Guindon Mod | I understand what you're saying, but no, it's not like saying you can post GPL code here because it's publicly available for anyone to grab on a public GitHub repository - a piece of GPL-licensed code would have a GPL license on the repo saying it's GPL-licensed. I'm not super well-versed in licensing, but if I see something out there without a license, my [apparently wrong] interpretation is that it's licensed under IDGAF or whatever. If I want something "closed source", I don't publish the code. Of course basic common sense is to ask the author permission to use their code... | |
| Feb 26, 2018 at 20:14 | comment | added | Peilonrayz Mod | @Mat'sMug That's like saying you can post GPL code here, because it's "publicly available for anyone to grab on a public GitHub repository". Closed source means the owner's not given rights away | |
| Feb 26, 2018 at 20:13 | comment | added | Mathieu Guindon Mod | Ok call me dumb here, but I never ever read "closed source" as meaning "publicly available for anyone to grab on a public GitHub repository" ...I'd think "closed source" would be in a private repository. | |
| Feb 26, 2018 at 20:12 | comment | added | Peilonrayz Mod | @Mat'sMug No rights are given by default - so everything by default is closed source. There being no license anywhere means they've not given anyone any rights. If anything how did the original give the rights to change the license to CC BY-SA? | |
| Feb 26, 2018 at 20:06 | comment | added | Mathieu Guindon Mod | @Peilonrayz I think I might be blind, I don't see a LICENSE.MD file on the repository, and I see Javascript source code pushed in 4 commits by 1 author, over 2 years ago - how is it closed source? | |
| Feb 26, 2018 at 18:59 | comment | added | Peilonrayz Mod | @Mast I have written an answer, if there are any further problems, please notify me there :) | |
| Feb 26, 2018 at 18:02 | comment | added | Mast Mod | @Peilonrayz Sounds serious, but I don't see it. Care to be more specific what went wrong? What closed source got improperly re-licensed? | |
| Feb 26, 2018 at 9:14 | comment | added | Peilonrayz Mod | I don't agree, it looks like the OP has committed some serious licence violations. Licencing closed source code under CC BY-SA 3.0. Where legal aspects is part of that close reason | |
| Feb 25, 2018 at 14:47 | vote | accept | Ben Steffan | ||
| Feb 24, 2018 at 18:26 | comment | added | doubleOrt |
I have added a link to the original repository now (in my question), just in case you're wondering how much has changed (specifically, I started refactoring from the solution/ directory of the repository, not the object-oriented-solution directory).
|
|
| Feb 24, 2018 at 18:12 | history | answered | janosMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |