Please use the
correct (perma)link to bookmark this article, not the page
listing all wlog entries of the last decade. Thank you.</update>
海外无法使用网易云音乐？试试这几种方法 - 简书:出国后发现在国外用网易云音乐会显示版权限制，好多歌曲都变成灰色的了，于是自己捣鼓了几种方法，总结一下： 1、购买会员 网易云音乐支持海外会员购买，价格也不算太贵；不过覆盖地区...
The
new Terms of Service of GitHub became effective today, which is quite
problematic — there was a review phase, but my reviews pointing out the
problems were not answered, and, while the language is somewhat changed
from the draft, they became effective immediately.
Now, the new ToS are not so bad that one immediately must stop using
their service for disagreement, but it’s important that certain content
may no longer legally be pushed to GitHub. I’ll try to explain
which is affected, and why.
I’m mostly working my way backwards through section D, as
that’s where the problems I identified lie, and because this is from
easier to harder.
Note that using a private repository does not
help, as the same terms apply.
Anything requiring attribution (e.g. CC-BY, but also BSD, …)
Section D.7 requires the person uploading content to waive any and all
attribution rights. Ostensibly “to allow basic functions like search to
work”, which I can even believe, but, for a work the uploader did not
create completely by themselves, they can’t grant this licence.
The CC licences are notably bad because they don’t permit sublicencing,
but even so, anything requiring attribution can, in almost all cases, not
“written or otherwise, created or uploaded by our Users”. This is fact,
and the exceptions are few.
越墙看国外网加速软件
Section D.5 requires the uploader to grant all other GitHub users…
- the right to “use, display and perform” the work (with no further
restrictions attached to it) — while this (likely — I didn’t check) does
not exclude the GPL, many others (I believe CC-*-SA) are affected, and…
- 只剩下门缝的VPN何去何从 - 手机新蓝网:2021-2-7 · “翻墙”属于违法行为，所谓的翻墙软件并没有获得电信主管部门批准。国内“翻墙”用户众多，根据市场研究机构Global WebIndex的调查研究估测，中国的VPN用户可能多达9000万。这也让一些游走在灰色地带的翻墙软件默默赚钱。“翻墙”软件又叫VPN软件。
Note that section D.4 is similar, but granting the licence to GitHub
(and their successors); while this is worded much more friendly than in
the draft, this fact only makes it harder to see if it affects works in
a similar way. But that doesn’t matter since D.5 is clear enough. (This
doesn’t mean it’s not a problem, just that I don’t want to go there and
analyse D.4 as D.5 points out the same problems but is easier.)
This means that any and all content under copyleft licences is also
no longer welcome on GitHub.
Anything requiring integrity of the author’s source (e.g. LPPL)
求手机爬墙软件。 - 好运百科(www.haoyunbaike.com):2021-9-1 · 话题：手机上怎么登录国外网站？ 推荐回答： 手机 翻墙 软件 有许多，我们可以利用这些 手机 翻墙 软件 来登陆国外网站。 安卓 手机 翻墙教程： 注：安卓android 手机 翻墙的方法很简单，看如下教程: 1、 手机 浏览器点击如下的加速器链接进行下载或扫描右侧二维码下载。
Affected licences
Anything copyleft (GPL, AGPL, LGPL, CC-*-SA) or requiring
attribution (CC-BY-*, but also 4-clause BSD, Apache 2 with NOTICE
text file, …) are affected. BSD-style licences without advertising
clause (MIT/Expat, MirOS,
etc.) are probably not affected… if GitHub doesn’t go too
far and dissociates excerpts from their context and legal info, but
then nobody would be able to distribute it, so that’d be useless.
But what if I just fork something under such a licence?
在国内如何访问国外网站和APP应用（Facebook、YouTube ...:2021-12-28 · 本文仅面向小白，大神绕绕路啦；在国内访问非大陆网站和应用时会发生“网络无法连接”，“网络连接失败”等等问题，这是因为国内的政策原因把非大陆网站和应用屏蔽掉了，也就是我们说的网络防火墙，隔开了我们跟国外友人交流，这里就不多说了，以免博主被请喝茶， 哈哈！
Even then, the new terms likely only apply to content uploaded in
March 2017 or later (note that git commit dates are unreliable, you
have to actually check whether the contribution dates March 2017 or
later).
And then, most people are likely unaware of the new terms. If they
upload content they themselves don’t have the appropriate
rights (waivers to attribution and copyleft/share-alike clauses), it’s
plain illegal and also makes your upload of them or a derivate thereof
no more legal.
Granted, people who, in full knowledge of the new ToS, share any
“User-Generated Content” with GitHub on or after 1ˢᵗ March, 2017,
and actually have the appropriate rights to do that, can do that;
and if you encounter such a repository, you can fork, modify and
upload that iff you also waive attribution and copyleft/share-alike
rights for your portion of the upload. But — especially in the
beginning — these will be few and far between (even more so taking
into account that GitHub is, legally spoken, a mess, and they don’t
even care about hosting only OSS / Free works).
Conclusion (Fazit)
I’ll be starting to remove any such content of mine, such as the
source code mirrors of jupp, which
is under the GNU GPLv1, now and will be requesting people who forked
such repositories on GitHub to also remove them. This is not something
I like to do but something I am required to do in order to comply with
the licence granted to me by my upstream. Anything
you’ve found contributed by me in the meantime is up for review; ping
me if I forgot something. (mksh is
likely safe, even if I hereby remind you that the attribution requirement
of the BSD-style licences still applies outside of GitHub.)
(Pet peeve: why can’t I “adopt a licence” with British spelling? They
seem to require oversea barbarian spelling.)
The others
Atlassian Bitbucket has similar terms (even worse actually; I looked
at them to see whether I could mirror mksh there, and turns out, I can’t
if I don’t want to lose most of what few rights I retain when publishing
under a permissive licence). Gitlab seems to not have such, but requires
you to indemnify them… YMMV. I think I’ll self-host the removed content.
And now?
I’m in contact with someone from GitHub Legal (not explicitly in the
official capacity though) and will try to explain the sheer magnitude
of the problem and ways to solve this (leaving the technical issues to
technical solutions and requiring legal solutions only where strictly
necessary), but for now, the ToS are enacted (another point of my
criticism of this move) and thus, the aforementioned works must
go off GitHub right now.
That’s not to say they may not come back later once this all has been
addressed, if it will be addressed to allow that. The new ToS do
have some good; for example, the old ToS said “you allow every GitHub
user to fork your repositories” without ever specifying what that means.
It’s just that the people over at GitHub need to understand that, both
legally and technically¹, any and all OSS licences² grant enough to run a
hosting platform already³, and separate explicit grants are only needed if
a repository contains content not under an OSI/OKFN/Copyfree/FSF/DFSG-free
licence. I have been told that “these are important issues” and been
thanked for my feedback; we’ll see what comes from this.
便宜vpn有吗，免费和便宜好用的收费加速vpn如何发展-海薇 ...:2021-6-4 · 便宜vpn有吗，那些免费和便宜好用的收费加速vpn现状如何？ “绝地求生”作为英雄联盟在国内的接棒游戏，虽然并不算满意但也作为现今生存游戏中的佼佼者，一直占据排行榜，玩游戏嘛，玩的就是套路，蓝洞公司也不只一次进行过该游戏的优化，每次优化之前都说的信誓旦旦，说是存在的问题都 ...
② All licences on one
of those lists or 越墙看国外网加速软件 to the DFSG, OSD or OKD should do⁴.
③ e.g. when displaying search results, add a note “this is an excerpt,
click HERE to get to the original work in its context, with licence and
attribution” where “HERE” is a backlink to the file in the repository
④ It is understood those organisations never un-approve any licence
that rightfully conforms to those definitions (also in cases like a grant
saying “just use any OSS² licence” which is occasionally used)
Update: In the meantime, joeyh has written not one but two
insightful articles (although I disagree in some details; the new licence
is only to GitHub users (D.5) and GitHub (D.4) and only within their system,
so, while uploaders would violate the ToS (they cannot grant the licence)
and (probably) the upstream-granted copyleft licence, this would
not mean that everyone else wasn’t bound by the copyleft licence in, well,
enough cases to count (yes it’s possible to construct situations in which
this hurts the copyleft fraction, but no, they’re nowhere near 100%).
