Necessity of having license information present in all code revisions [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.

---

This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.

Closed 7 years ago.

Improve this question

I'm considering posting some code on github. Older revisions of the code don't have a COPYING file or other licensing information in them. What's the effect o开发者_JAVA技巧f posting this publicly? Would people be able to copy and use that code freely without adhering to any license constraints?

Although there doesn't appear to be a "default license" applied to projects posted on github, their Terms and Conditions document has this to say:

...by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.

Which is a bit ambiguous, to say the least: does forking a repository, in itself, enable the forker to do as she wishes with the therein-contained code, or is this concept orthogonal to the actual modification of the code?

edit: added this paragraph: And on a related note: can people attempt to use versions of the code which don't have a warranty disclaimer (eg This program is distributed . . . WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY), and then sue me when it fails?

And my main question: Should I run git filter-branch to add a COPYING file to all revisions before pushing to github? This is a bit of a hassle, as it will invalidate commit id references and require that I re-clone any backup repos.

---

I agree Github's Terms are ambiguous, and I wouldn't want to rely on them. However, forking implies to me some kind of basic modification rights. It definitely doesn't imply to me unlimited rights. For instance, it doesn't say anything about distributing binaries.

As far as the warranty, I think your disclaimer is probably only valid for the versions that include it. But that doesn't mean that a court would necessarily find there is a warranty.

So, I would play it safe and do the filter-branches despite the inconvenience.

IANAL.

---

NOT LEGAL ADVICE:::

I would imagine that it would still hold that you would be the copyright owner of all versions, regardless of COPYING file or not.

As orip suggests, the license gives others the right to distribute and copy. Now, the terms of github, I believe, also require that you have an open source license, or one which provides some measure of grant to copying permissions.

So, without COPYING file, as a viewer of your code, I would imagine I am able to download your code, as you have provided it for distribution, but if I wanted to distribute the code, I should contact you to determine under what conditions you would allow me to copy the code.

You are probably safe if you post a disclaimer on the project description, the Web portion of github, saying "unless otherwise stated, code in this branch covered by ABC license, and XYZ disclaimer".

---

There is nothing technologically about Git which prevents others from copying your code. Those who obey licenses will obey licenses. You can try to sue those who don't obey your license.

---

The license text is what gives people the right to use the code. Without a license, people other than the copyright holder (you) have no rights to use it for anything.

So your older versions in the history still keep your rights.