Hacker News Reader

Comment by casca | Hacker News Reader

IANAL but this doesn't seem unreasonable. The exact clause is:

End User hereby grants Atlassian a non-exclusive license to copy, distribute, perform, display, store, modify, and otherwise use End User Data in connection with operating the Hosted Services.

For me, the key is "in connection with operating the Hosting Service". They will need to do things with your data as they move it between servers and storage and make it available to you. If you want it displayed publicly then you need to have given them a license to do so.

View on HN

Copy: obviously, I want them to store my data and move them from HD to HD. Distribute: This is what a distributed version control system is for. Perform: Yes, please, format my .md files as specified. Display: show me my code please. Store: already covered. Modify: this is dubious but if I upload a change, they need to modify it.

So I want to give them those rights if I want the service to work as desired, otherwise, it would not be bitbucket.

modify may apply to editing files throght the browser

Yes, this article is absolutely horrible by coming to the opposite of the correct conclusion.

How could an attorney parsing the documents not notice the "in connection with operating the Hosting Service" stipulation?

Further, Bitbucket and Github are opposite in terms of the freedom you have to control your FREE repositories. Github forces your free repositories to be open to the public. Bitbucket allows you to keep some free repositories private.

The wording "in connection with" is specifically considered in the article. Also, here is the definition for "Hosted Services" (it's extremely broad):

1.2 What's Included in "Hosted Services". "Hosted Services" include any Atlassian online services products that End User orders, which can include "OnDemand" versions of many Atlassian Software products, the Bitbucket hosting service ("Bitbucket"), and other online services provided by Atlassian. "Hosted Services" always means the version of the Hosted Services as described in Atlassian's then-current product descriptions. End User's detailed rights to use Hosted Services are in Section 3 below.

Atlassian provide a lot of services which can be used in conjunction with one another. They probably use similar wording across their suite so that they are able to allow interaction between products etc.

I'm not sure where you got that quote from, but it's used exactly here: http://www.atlassian.com/end-user-agreement/ So yes, it's used across their suite, and doesn't seem overly broad in that case.

"In order to keep our prices low, we sold the contents of some private repositories" counts as 'in connection with operating the Hosting Service'. The author's problem is that the wording isn't particularly specific and can be used in a number of ways.

Also, they're give me a private repo for free if I ask for it, which is something GitHub doesn't offer, so a slight difference in ToS I would not find at all surprising. And this just sounds like a different legal template to me and not much more, they list specific things they need to do and then lump in the general "stuff we have to do with your stuff to make hosting work" clause, which is perfectly fine to me.

More importantly, Atlassian is further constrained by the confidentiality clause (section 8) of its End User Agreement [1].

[1] http://www.atlassian.com/end-user-agreement/

Why do they need to modify the data? And why do they need to distribute it (assuming this is different from copying), and for that matter why do they need to use your source code?

Modify: things like the just-launched web editor will need to modify whatever data you originally uploaded. Distribute: git clone etc. Execute: scripts and so on, or even interpreting markup could be considered "using" a file in some contexts.

> Why do they need to modify the data?

Maybe they want to store it in a compressed form

> distribute it

Making the code available for you or your collaborators is distributing it. How else would they do this?

Why not just email them with your concerns, if you actually really have some, and aren't just playing to the peanut gallery for karma.

Why not just email them with your concerns, if you actually really have some, and aren't just playing to the peanut gallery for karma.

Ascribing motivations to my post is illogical, not to mention unfair. I have some genuine concerns, I posted them above.

Luckily, my account is with GitHub, not with BitBucket.

P.S. see my reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5888670

Modify so they can change and update the code when you push revisions or use their web based editor. They need to distribute it so you or others you allow can clone it or view it online. They need to use your code so they can format .md files.

Modify & Distribute: If someone wants to download a zip file of your repository, then you have give BitBucket the permission to modify the content (to produce the zip file) and distribute it (to send it to someone who wants it).

Use it: I'm not sure, maybe to do syntax highlighting, they need to use the source code with a syntax highlighting software.

Does content modification in legal speak really have the same strict meaning as we tend to imply? I just checked Instagram's Terms for example, and they have no mention of modification—though they obviously do compress and resize submitted images.

This makes me wonder if altering a sequence of bytes (for example, after conversion to a different format) is really a ‘modification’ if it still represents the same work.

Do you truly think that Github does not do the same? Any service needs to modify your data on the backend for the good of the service, including copying it to multiple servers for backups and ensuring uptime during a server failure.

They do not need to distribute your code, i.e. making your repo public - this is part of their service and you grant them the right to do so when you make it public.

Do they need to use your source code - well not explicitly as such, but they do modify it when displaying it back to you - look at any source code page, it is modified source code.

This is all in the auspices of giving you a good service.

Furthermore, any fork network modifies your repo - it is all one repository. So in essence, you are modifying people's repos without them knowing.

You can't deny that the wording is far more convoluted and vague, despite the precise legal implications.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com