Initial Review: Legal by bkeepers · Pull Request #20 · github/opensource.guide

bkeepers · 2016-08-11T19:46:53Z

This pull request is for the initial content review of the article on the legal aspects of releasing a new open source project. Feel free to discuss and make changes to the article on this pull request.

You can view the current draft in context with the rest of the handbook.

Edit Current Draft | View Rendered Changes

bkeepers · 2016-08-11T19:55:11Z

(Do we need a legal disclaimer for this piece?)

The license API docs say:

GitHub is a lot of things, but it’s not a law firm. As such, GitHub does not provide legal advice. Using the Licenses API or sending us an email about it does not constitute legal advice nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. If you have any questions about what you can and can't do with a particular license, you should consult with your own legal counsel before moving forward. In fact, you should always consult with your own lawyer before making any decisions that might have legal ramifications or that may impact your legal rights.

GitHub created the License API to help users get information about open source licenses and the projects that use them. We hope it helps, but please keep in mind that we’re not lawyers (at least not most of us aren't) and that we make mistakes like everyone else. For that reason, GitHub provides the API on an “as-is” basis and makes no warranties regarding any information or licenses provided on or through it, and disclaims liability for damages resulting from using the API.

That feels a little verbose, but would something like that work?

mlinksva · 2016-08-11T20:08:16Z

Legally relevant topics aren't limited in the current draft to legal.md (which exclusively about IP). I suspect a general disclaimer would be useful, maybe in an appendix linked to early on?

mlinksva · 2016-08-12T17:55:24Z

I suggest opening an issue in github/legal when you're ready to have a general disclaimer crafted (or maybe decision that one isn't needed). Some of the other legally relevant material I noticed clicking through the pages:

https://github.com/github/open-source-handbook/blob/gh-pages/getting-started/branding.md
https://github.com/github/open-source-handbook/blob/gh-pages/sustaining/leadership.md#do-i-need-a-legal-entity-to-support-my-project
and maybe various pages addressing handling conflict in various forms

* origin/gh-pages: Remove consecutive blank lines Disable prose checks for now Add js-yaml dependency Make the robots happy about node Ignore paths excluded by jekyll Remove variable assignment Add script/test Add script/bootstrap Rename test script Ignore node_modules directory Add simplify package Test for readability, equality, etc

bkeepers · 2016-08-14T04:57:33Z

Some of the other legally relevant material I noticed clicking through the pages…

👍 feel free to make suggestions or edits to any of those documents in this PR (or any subsequent PRs)

… into review-legal

- vision, philosopy etc if project has one bigger scope than CoC - mention contributor covenant - behavior, bigger scope than just communication

mlinksva · 2016-08-15T18:55:53Z

Pushed random gaggle of edits, feel free to discard any and all.

Final commit on legal.md still to come.

* origin/gh-pages: Enable no-missing-blank-lines rule no-html rule is not needed at the moment Fix errors from no-literal-urls rule Re-enable no-literal-urls rule Ignore non-markdown pages in lint tests Temporary minimal styles Re-enable no-inline-padding rule Ignore edit link Add link to suggest edits Disable remaining failing lint checks Fail the tests if there are lint warnings Use proper footnote references Enable GFM and footnotes in linter Normalize headings Update lint config for headings

mlinksva · 2016-08-16T01:11:04Z

have no idea how I just closed and reopened this issue, apart from mindless clicking on wrong window <- Apologies _> I have not completed reviewing the latter ~40% of the legal section, will do so tomorrow.

aitchabee · 2016-08-16T17:22:13Z

getting-started/index.md

 Open source licenses grant permission to everyone to use, modify, and share licensed software for any purpose, subject to certain conditions, depending on the license.

-Public repositories on GitHub [comply with GitHub’s Terms of Service](https://help.github.com/articles/open-source-licensing/), which gives other people the right to view and fork your repository. But if you want others to use, copy, modify, or contribute back to your project, you need to include an open source license. For example, someone cannot legally use your GitHub project in their code, even if it’s public, unless you explicitly give them the right to do so. (You can learn more about the legal side of open source [here](legal/).)
+Public repositories on GitHub are covered by [GitHub’s Terms of Service](https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#f-copyright-and-content-ownership), which gives other people the right to view and fork your repository. But if you want others to use, copy, modify, or contribute back to your project, you need to [include an open source license](https://help.github.com/articles/open-source-licensing/). For example, someone cannot legally use your GitHub project in their code, even if it’s public, unless you explicitly give them the right to do so. (You can learn more about the legal side of open source [here](legal/).)


which gives other people the right to view and fork your repository

I find this bit confusing still. Would changing it to the following, be both accurate and more clear?

which gives other people the right to view, fork, and use the software in your repository, but not absorb any of your code into their own.

I would change

legally use your GitHub project in their

to

legally use any part of your GitHub project in their

aitchabee · 2016-08-16T17:26:18Z

getting-started/legal.md

+## Why does my project need an open source license?

-When you publish a creative work (which includes code), your work is under copyright by default. Unless you include a license that specifies otherwise, nobody can copy or modify your work without being subject to copyright law.
+When you make a creative work (which includes code), the work is under exclusive copyright by default. Unless you include a license that specifies otherwise, nobody else can use, copy, distribute, or modify your work without being at risk of take-downs, shake-downs, or litigation. Once the work has other contributors (each a copyright holder), nobody includes you.


holder), nobody includes you.

to

holder), "nobody" starts including you.

though even that doesn't clear it up for me. I think what is trying to be said here is, that without a license, you can legally be locked out of your own work, just because someone else forked it?

aitchabee · 2016-08-16T17:29:15Z

getting-started/legal.md

+An open source license guarantees that everyone can use, modify and share your project. It protects both you and anybody else who might interact with your project.

-Making your GitHub project public is not the same as licensing your project. Public GitHub projects allow others to view and fork your project, but your work is otherwise copyrighted unless you add an open source license.
+Making your GitHub project public is not the same as licensing your project. Public GitHub projects allow others to view and fork your project, but your work otherwise comes with no permissions unless you add an open source license.


comes with no permissions unless

to

comes with no use permissions or protections unless

aitchabee · 2016-08-16T17:31:53Z

getting-started/legal.md

+* **For individuals releasing an open source project with no deeper interests,** consider the [MIT License](http://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/), a short and simple permissive license with conditions only requiring preservation of copyright and license notices. Licensed works, modifications, and larger works may be distributed under different terms and without source code.
+* **For companies releasing an open source project,** consider the [Apache License 2.0](http://choosealicense.com/licenses/apache-2.0/), also a permissive license whose main conditions require preservation of copyright and license notices. Contributors provide an express grant of patent rights. Licensed works, modifications, and larger works may be distributed under different terms and without source code.
+* **For those who care about keeping their code open source,** consider the [GNU General Public License v3.0](http://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/), which is a strong copyleft license with permissions conditioned on making available complete source code of licensed works and modifications, which include larger works using a licensed work, under the same license. Copyright and license notices must be preserved. Contributors provide an express grant of patent rights.



Honestly, I still wouldn't have a clue what the above paragraphs mean, and wouldn't be encouraged to pick a license here.

mlinksva

Comment on @aitchabee comments. Thanks!

mlinksva · 2016-08-16T17:56:02Z

getting-started/index.md

 Open source licenses grant permission to everyone to use, modify, and share licensed software for any purpose, subject to certain conditions, depending on the license.

-Public repositories on GitHub [comply with GitHub’s Terms of Service](https://help.github.com/articles/open-source-licensing/), which gives other people the right to view and fork your repository. But if you want others to use, copy, modify, or contribute back to your project, you need to include an open source license. For example, someone cannot legally use your GitHub project in their code, even if it’s public, unless you explicitly give them the right to do so. (You can learn more about the legal side of open source [here](legal/).)
+Public repositories on GitHub are covered by [GitHub’s Terms of Service](https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#f-copyright-and-content-ownership), which gives other people the right to view and fork your repository. But if you want others to use, copy, modify, or contribute back to your project, you need to [include an open source license](https://help.github.com/articles/open-source-licensing/). For example, someone cannot legally use your GitHub project in their code, even if it’s public, unless you explicitly give them the right to do so. (You can learn more about the legal side of open source [here](legal/).)


Not more accurate. No permission to use is granted by agreement with the TOS.

Thanks for "any part of", will incorporate.

mlinksva · 2016-08-16T18:00:12Z

getting-started/legal.md

+## Why does my project need an open source license?

-When you publish a creative work (which includes code), your work is under copyright by default. Unless you include a license that specifies otherwise, nobody can copy or modify your work without being subject to copyright law.
+When you make a creative work (which includes code), the work is under exclusive copyright by default. Unless you include a license that specifies otherwise, nobody else can use, copy, distribute, or modify your work without being at risk of take-downs, shake-downs, or litigation. Once the work has other contributors (each a copyright holder), nobody includes you.


Almost: because someone else contributed to it. Just forking doesn't mean they contributed. Once there are multiple contributors, there are multiple copyright holders.

I'm taking your wording suggestion, but if you can think of a better way to state given the above, I'm all ears.

mlinksva · 2016-08-16T18:05:03Z

getting-started/legal.md

+An open source license guarantees that everyone can use, modify and share your project. It protects both you and anybody else who might interact with your project.

-Making your GitHub project public is not the same as licensing your project. Public GitHub projects allow others to view and fork your project, but your work is otherwise copyrighted unless you add an open source license.
+Making your GitHub project public is not the same as licensing your project. Public GitHub projects allow others to view and fork your project, but your work otherwise comes with no permissions unless you add an open source license.


"protections" is a really ambiguous thing in this context -- often used to refer to ability of copyright holder to protect their exclusive rights, which are intact without a license. Given this other meaning its hard to state "no protections" without a license, though I'd love to.

mlinksva · 2016-08-16T18:07:00Z

getting-started/legal.md

+* **For individuals releasing an open source project with no deeper interests,** consider the [MIT License](http://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/), a short and simple permissive license with conditions only requiring preservation of copyright and license notices. Licensed works, modifications, and larger works may be distributed under different terms and without source code.
+* **For companies releasing an open source project,** consider the [Apache License 2.0](http://choosealicense.com/licenses/apache-2.0/), also a permissive license whose main conditions require preservation of copyright and license notices. Contributors provide an express grant of patent rights. Licensed works, modifications, and larger works may be distributed under different terms and without source code.
+* **For those who care about keeping their code open source,** consider the [GNU General Public License v3.0](http://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/), which is a strong copyleft license with permissions conditioned on making available complete source code of licensed works and modifications, which include larger works using a licensed work, under the same license. Copyright and license notices must be preserved. Contributors provide an express grant of patent rights.



I know...will have another go. Thanks for your comments!

mlinksva · 2016-08-17T19:08:41Z

I think done with "content". I'll fix the test failures in a bit.

nayafia · 2016-08-18T18:20:40Z

getting-started/legal.md

+## Why does my project need an open source license?

-When you publish a creative work (which includes code), your work is under copyright by default. Unless you include a license that specifies otherwise, nobody can copy or modify your work without being subject to copyright law.
+When you make a creative work (which includes code), the work is under exclusive copyright by default. Unless you include a license that specifies otherwise, nobody else can use, copy, distribute, or modify your work without being at risk of take-downs, shake-downs, or litigation. Once the work has other contributors (each a copyright holder), nobody includes you.


really important clarification here. thanks for adding it.

nayafia · 2016-08-18T18:37:29Z

getting-started/legal.md

+* **For individuals releasing an open source project with no deeper interests,** consider the [MIT License](http://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/), a short and simple permissive license with conditions only requiring preservation of copyright and license notices. Licensed works, modifications, and larger works may be distributed under different terms and without source code.
+* **For companies releasing an open source project,** consider the [Apache License 2.0](http://choosealicense.com/licenses/apache-2.0/), also a permissive license whose main conditions require preservation of copyright and license notices. Contributors provide an express grant of patent rights. Licensed works, modifications, and larger works may be distributed under different terms and without source code.
+* **For those who care about keeping their code open source,** consider the [GNU General Public License v3.0](http://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/), which is a strong copyleft license with permissions conditioned on making available complete source code of licensed works and modifications, which include larger works using a licensed work, under the same license. Copyright and license notices must be preserved. Contributors provide an express grant of patent rights.



I like how you revised this approach. I edited it a bit to make the language simpler and friendlier, but otherwise kept it intact.

making the language simpler and friendlier

nayafia

Just went through all these proposed changes. Thank you @mlinksva for making this look great, and to @aitchabee for balancing our perspectives! Really appreciate the thorough job here.

@aitchabee

* origin/gh-pages: (33 commits) edit contributor agreement section make legal.md friendlier sounding CC0 for any code Add linting for sentence-spacing missing < cc-by-4.0 content, mit code Remove unnecessary pronouns fix internal links Remove duplicate spaces Use Oxford commas more consistently Polish casing Fix typo’s Refactor wording legal team considerations fix dupe blank lines warning rewrite "which license" section @aitchabee feedback #20 (review) fix warnings fix internal link CLA section edits ...

@aitchabee

* gh-pages: (35 commits) Add linting for quote style edit contributor agreement section make legal.md friendlier sounding CC0 for any code Add linting for sentence-spacing missing < cc-by-4.0 content, mit code Replace fancy quotes with plain ol' boring quotes Remove unnecessary pronouns fix internal links Remove duplicate spaces Use Oxford commas more consistently Polish casing Fix typo’s Refactor wording legal team considerations fix dupe blank lines warning rewrite "which license" section @aitchabee feedback #20 (review) fix warnings ...

…article-titles Fix non CamelCase article titles

tr/building-community.md

# This is the 1st commit message: Arabic translation for how to contribute # This is the commit message github#2: Fix anchor text # This is the commit message github#3: anchor Text again # This is the commit message github#4: anchor text again # This is the commit message github#5: Fix blanks # This is the commit message #6: fix blanks X100 # This is the commit message github#7: edit blank # This is the commit message github#8: editing # This is the commit message github#9: editing2 # This is the commit message github#10: add arabic translation for maintaining-balance-for-open-source-maintainers # This is the commit message github#11: some changes on maintainingArticle # This is the commit message github#12: changes * # This is the commit message github#13: Maha Work # This is the commit message github#14: 3 new articles # This is the commit message github#15: edit quotes # This is the commit message github#16: added 2 articles # This is the commit message github#17: fix anchor text # This is the commit message #18: afnan work # This is the commit message #19: translated 2 new articles by afnan # This is the commit message github#20: fix anchor text # This is the commit message github#21: Arabic translation: starting-a-project.md by wafaa # This is the commit message #22: translated starting-a-project # This is the commit message github#23: some changes # This is the commit message github#24: translated legal # This is the commit message github#25: fix anchor text # This is the commit message github#26: fixes

Start review of legal article

94a698e

bkeepers added the content label Aug 13, 2016

mlinksva added 10 commits August 15, 2016 09:11

source+license

6251982

Merge branch 'review-legal' of github.com:github/open-source-handbook…

56e6166

… into review-legal

comply with->covered by TOS, slightly more intuitive links

d303ce4

rm superfluous at best jargon

1d146fa

rm individual license mentions

eee2d92

you are not a project, a file does not actively solicit

01096e9

write->establish coc...

18757d4

- vision, philosopy etc if project has one bigger scope than CoC - mention contributor covenant - behavior, bigger scope than just communication

less stale link, essential link

36b9bd0

pertinent link, rm not final finally

7655d8e

wording

ec8f0fe

bkeepers and others added 7 commits August 15, 2016 14:17

Fix merge conflict

aa27772

Fix link

6441d5a

Fix lint warnings

5ffcb80

CLA section edits

daad3f0

fix internal link

b79ca97

fix warnings

0c62362

mlinksva closed this Aug 16, 2016

mlinksva reopened this Aug 16, 2016

aitchabee reviewed Aug 16, 2016

View reviewed changes

mlinksva reviewed Aug 16, 2016

View reviewed changes

mlinksva added 4 commits August 16, 2016 11:08

@aitchabee feedback #20 (review)

efd9713

rewrite "which license" section

9040bba

fix dupe blank lines warning

e3cea09

legal team considerations

3353b21

mlinksva added 3 commits August 17, 2016 13:40

fix internal links

31ed010

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/gh-pages' into review-legal

ad10f92

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/gh-pages' into review-legal

a612752

nayafia reviewed Aug 18, 2016

View reviewed changes

make legal.md friendlier sounding

f4560c8

nayafia reviewed Aug 18, 2016

View reviewed changes

edit contributor agreement section

7de78c1

making the language simpler and friendlier

nayafia approved these changes Aug 18, 2016

View reviewed changes

nayafia merged commit 3973423 into gh-pages Aug 18, 2016

nayafia deleted the review-legal branch August 18, 2016 18:56

mlinksva pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 5, 2019

Merge pull request #20 from leolleocomp/fix-non-camelcase-translated-…

7dfe00a

…article-titles Fix non CamelCase article titles

mlinksva pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 20, 2020

Merge pull request #20 from umutphp/gitlocalize-12347

c44a3c1

tr/building-community.md

Conversation

bkeepers commented Aug 11, 2016

Edit Current Draft | View Rendered Changes

Uh oh!

bkeepers commented Aug 11, 2016

Uh oh!

mlinksva commented Aug 11, 2016

Uh oh!

mlinksva commented Aug 12, 2016

Uh oh!

bkeepers commented Aug 14, 2016

Uh oh!

mlinksva commented Aug 15, 2016

Uh oh!

mlinksva commented Aug 16, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aitchabee Aug 16, 2016 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mlinksva left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mlinksva commented Aug 17, 2016

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nayafia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

aitchabee Aug 16, 2016 •

edited

Loading