Hacker News Reader

Comment by dataflow | Hacker News Reader

> The wording still precludes me forking this repo on GitHub.

AFAIK that's irrelevant per GitHub's TOS, which users agree to:

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).

AIUI you therefore always have the right to fork something on GitHub.

https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

View on HN

Cave-at. If someone shares something on github which they do not have the copyright to, nor license for, then that can impossibly be okay to fork on Github.

I've seen people forking Unreal Engine on GitHub without any restrictions for public view. Makes one think about this kind of thing.

You are correct. Github's license terms are a hedge against that sort of thing. They are basically saying "the person making this source available is granting the license to d these particular things" - therefore, the user making the source available takes on the responsibility for making sure they actually have the authority to make this source available. If they do not have this authority then they are the ones that will be sued - not Github nor any users who cloned the code.

Though beware: you do have license to fork it on GitHub, but you don't necessarily have license to clone this fork locally.

(Then again, that makes me think: does that mean you could use a modified copy however you want, as long as you only do it over GitHub CI?)

I would think the statement "this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories" is referring to cloning the forked repos locally.

I wouldn't read it that way. The subsequent paragraph is very explicit in saying others can "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)" (emphasis mine).

Instead, I'd read "copies of Content" as referring to copies produced and consumed entirely through GitHub's services, which can exist independently from the original. E.g., if you have a public repo, someone else forks it, and you delete the original, the other person can still view their fork on GitHub. They can also modify that fork through GitHub's services, e.g., by editing files via the website.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com