The first may protect the right for Github to host the repo (though even that seems somewhat a stretch), but it certainly doesn't grant or protect any right to publish on Github servers.
Is government the reason GitHub is removing the repo?
If so, then this is exactly an abridgment of rights, and GitHub would be an accomplice to the government is that violation. Government asking for someone's rights to be violiated, no matter how politely they do so, is still a violation of rights.
Absolutely nobody will admit to the dynamic and will actively avoid any attempt at on paper recognition of it, as to do so will completely destroy/dismantle the PD chain.
In short, the government is effectively accountabilty laundering in order to for keep out money launderers.
Why do some people jump to interpret things that way? There's something kind of pathetic at the heart of that.
Is how I read it.
> The first may protect the right for Github to host the repo (though even that seems somewhat a stretch)
There's a rather murky limit on freedom of speech, I'm really not sure where it stands with regard to instructional content in general - however some such content has been constrained before; usually regarding weapons (or really any content that the government can argue is weapons related).
It's murky, and subject to government overreach.
> but it certainly doesn't grant or protect any right to publish on Github servers.
The first constrains the government, it in no way constrains private entities.
In fact (given the corporate personhood), to require that a private entity publish content from a third party would be compelled speech, and a breach of the entity's first amendment rights.
I don't believe it's murky at all, but defined deliberately in fuzzy terms in a number of important ways, one of which is the avoidance of precipitation of criminality. Criminality defined as that which is harmful to society. Although it may sound weak, compared to the presumed unfettered principles invoked above, should one or other of a separating couple used Tornado Cash to rinse common property funds, something that isn't drug dealing or terrorism anyhow, nevertheless it's laundering and using a device to commit a crime without which device that crime may not be possible. Federal proceedings against Tornado Cash have given the unlawful enterprise unprecedented profile and it follows that the motivation for anyone who strives for continuance of the same or similar, in light of the reasons for federal action, could be construed as being potential criminal too. Frankly I am stunned in the era that recognizes hate speech, that the automatic right to unfiltered and inconsequential freedom of speech is claimed so crudely, so reflexively and on such narrow and unexplained grounds..
Common misconception.
You can post the machinist drawings for any unclassified (or classified, if somehow you came across them without having signed any paperwork related to security clearances). That is protected by the Courts.
Where you get into hot water is ITAR and restricted exports where free speech runs into the whole national security/foreign affairs jurisdiction by the Feds. You cannot post the manual for an F-16 for instance, in such a way as it could be accessed by adversaries of the United States. Access to that type of information has to be gated behind some form of arcane onboarding process to ensure one is actually authorized to see it.
There was an attempt at gating 3d printed gun patterns I think, but all the courts would let through is that a manufacturer must ensure the recipient is a U.S. Citizen, so it switched from published on website, to shipped on CD iirc.
Haven't checked on recent developments.
The first part's maybe true, the second part is bullshit.
Microsoft just did some risk management and decided that it's not worth it to keep their own users data. I find it quite interesting that someone puts Github's management in a difficult situation. Are they gonna terminate Prof Green's account too? Are they gonna hunt down every copy of the source code on Github? Are they giving high-profile users a special treatment?
Looking forward to how this plays out.
Even if some activist executive would allow it, Microsoft’s lawyers would absolutely not.
And the shareholders also wouldn’t.
Don’t forget that the purpose of a business is to create shareholder value (as defined by the shareholders themselves), and I highly doubt that the majority of Microsoft’s shareholders would see any value in this. Just liability.
Conclusion - not worth it.
> Are they gonna terminate Prof Green's account too?
Probably not.
> Are they gonna hunt down every copy of the source code on Github?
Probably.
It's a perversion of the concept to jump to must produce a positive financial return. Sometimes you just need an organization to coordinate something that eases a societal ill.
That business schools have forgotten this, and that we don't remind people of this consistently is a tragedy. It cuts off entire avenues of collective organization to get things done. Some times "getting it done at minimum outlay" is enough.
At no point I suggested that. I said "shareholder value, as defined by the shareholders themselves".
"value" doesn't imply fiscal.