Re: [ESPResSo-devel] New GitHub Terms of Service

[Henri Menke]

One can use GitLab CI on our GitLab.  Some projects already do, e.g. this one
https://gitlab.icp.uni-stuttgart.de/paper/paper01

(Sorry, link is only ICP internal)

On 03/09/2017 10:13 AM, Florian Weik wrote:
> Hi all,
> Welcome to the cloud. Just to ad my 2 cents: I think at least technically Ulf 
> is correct. This makes it impossible to put code that you don't have the 
> copyright for (as opposed to have been granted a licences to use it) to 
> github. This is especially ill-fitting for jurisdictions like Germany where 
> copyright can not be transferred. This is not so much a problem for ongoing 
> development on github (the users have to agree to githubs ToS to get any code 
> in, so that they automatically grant github the required licence) but 
> impossible to fulfill for legacy code. We would have to contact all authors 
> and ask for permission to use their code on github, which we obviously will 
> not do. The analysis in the SO thread that Kai posted seems to come to a 
> similar conclusion. One can only speculate what their rational behind this is 
> (I think use in search and so on would have been fair use...), but I don't 
> think we should go with this. Since we are running a gitlab instance in 
> Stuttgart anyway,
> one way would be to continue development there, which would avoid such 
> problems also in the future. A downside might be that tool integration is not 
> as good, e.g. for travis, but I'm not sure about that. Alternatively we could 
> just wait, assuming that this particular problem was overlooked and github 
> will change its ToS. After all this affects all open source projects that do 
> not have a contributors agreement that transfers all rights, including e.g. 
> the Kernel.
> 
> Cheers,
> Florian 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:47 AM Kai Szuttor <address@hidden 
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
> 
>     Maybe we should watch this SO discussion:
> 
>     
> http://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/are-the-new-github-terms-of-service-a-kiss-of-death-for-open-source-projects
> 
>     The current opinion seems to be that the new ToS grants gihub that you
>     have the rights for the content to give github the rights to use your
>     content without displaying your license.
> 
>     Cheers,
> 
>     Kai
>     On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 06:09:18PM -0500, Ulf Schiller wrote:
>     > I had a chance to discuss with our IP officer, and here's my current
>     > understanding.
>     >
>     > Section D.4 of the GitHub terms state: "If you set your pages and
>     > repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a
>     > nonexclusive, worldwide license to access your Content through the 
> GitHub
>     > Service, and to use, display and perform your Content, and to reproduce 
> your
>     > Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality. 
> You
>     > may grant further rights if you adopt a license."
>     >
>     > It is important to note that, e.g., the GPL does not simply grant 
> rights, it
>     > grants rights under certain provisions. The above phrasing does not
>     > explicitly state that the rights granted each User of GitHub are 
> subject to
>     > the terms of the license adopted, if so chosen, thus potentially 
> creating a
>     > loophole for other users to strip off the adopted license. This is 
> exactly
>     > what the Copyleft of, e.g., the GPL seeks to prevent (cf. Section 4 of 
> the
>     > GPL). The problem here is that one effectively grants two licenses 
> which may
>     > have incompatible provisions. Given that many people have contributed to
>     > ESPResSo under the terms of the GPL and may thus still own copyright for
>     > their contributions, it may be legally problematic to convey the whole 
> or
>     > parts of ESPResSo under any other license (again, this is the intent of 
> the
>     > GPL).
>     >
>     > I am not saying that there are any sinister intentions on the part of 
> GitHub
>     > nor that any rashly action is necessary (as neither did the article I
>     > linked, in fact). I am just pointing out that there is a loophole in the
>     > GitHub Terms of Use that one should be aware of. If my understanding is
>     > wrong, I'll be glad to be corrected.
>     >
>     > Thank you,
>     > Ulf
>     >
>     > On 03/03/2017 02:47 PM, Ulf Schiller wrote:
>     > >First of all, apologies for the "tracking cancer". I find it equally
>     > >annoying but it is unfortunately beyond my control.
>     > >
>     > >Second, I have shared the link to create awareness of the potential
>     > >issue and initiate a discussion.
>     > >
>     > >Third, I think most subscribers of this list will appreciate
>     > >substantiating evidence for the claims that the "article is completely
>     > >exaggerated" and that this case "is completely unrealistic". It may be
>     > >the case, I simply don't know. Unsubstantiated claims, however, are by 
> a
>     > >vast majority of the scientific community considered bad practice.
>     > >
>     > >Thank you,
>     > >Ulf
>     > >
>     > >On 03/03/2017 11:59 AM, Henri Menke wrote:
>     > >>First of all the link without the tracking cancer:
>     > 
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.mirbsd.org_permalinks_wlog-2D10-5Fe20170301-2Dtg.htm&d=DwIDaQ&c=Ngd-ta5yRYsqeUsEDgxhcqsYYY1Xs5ogLxWPA_2Wlc4&r=9HKBLELzR4cr8VDrFLGdom3-YW9ayOJQwH65Vt5eFQc&m=-zZTLcpCDdmUGfEFJcPUujvKxlXml-od5pY77JpNPsU&s=EebocPPCx5iyFtrgZ9Nht_NMVEvO34OfFIQbcImKyZo&e=
>     > >>
>     > >>Second, we don’t have a problem and this article is completely
>     > >>exaggerated, especially because this would mean that approximately 90%
>     > >>of all projects on GitHub would be taken down.
>     > >>
>     > >>Third, if this is actually the case (which is completely unrealistic)
>     > >>we just move to 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gitlab.com_&d=DwIDaQ&c=Ngd-ta5yRYsqeUsEDgxhcqsYYY1Xs5ogLxWPA_2Wlc4&r=9HKBLELzR4cr8VDrFLGdom3-YW9ayOJQwH65Vt5eFQc&m=-zZTLcpCDdmUGfEFJcPUujvKxlXml-od5pY77JpNPsU&s=adzxGbNlkZfQ_qmKPnE2J-nNg-JMd0FJKfC37pwbpGc&e=
>     > >>
>     > >>On 03/03/2017 05:34 PM, Ulf Schiller wrote:
>     > >>>Stuttgart, we (may) have a problem...
>     > >>>
>     > 
> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.mirbsd.org_permalinks_wlog-2D10-5Fe20170301-2Dtg.htm&d=DwICaQ&c=Ngd-ta5yRYsqeUsEDgxhcqsYYY1Xs5ogLxWPA_2Wlc4&r=9HKBLELzR4cr8VDrFLGdom3-YW9ayOJQwH65Vt5eFQc&m=24y_szbgE4sBUEMNZ-RRUdRRc6VOxrgeS0BSjdf9QHY&s=cFwd9YLHoQmAIZxA3oAH3t7v3bOc_0uquQbGS9Vkdp8&e=
>     > >>>
>     > >
>     >
>     > --
>     > Dr. Ulf D. Schiller
>     > Assistant Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering
>     > Faculty Scholar, School of Health Research
>     > Clemson University
>     > 161 Sirrine Hall
>     > Clemson, SC 29634
>     >
>     > Office: 299c Sirrine Hall
>     > Phone: 1-864-656-2669 <tel:(864)%20656-2669>
>     > Fax: 1-864-656-5973 <tel:(864)%20656-5973>
>