wow.js.org copyright unclarity

[indus]

@graingert it looks like you forked a unlicenced project from @matthieua ("wow") put an MIT licence to it and requested a subdomain from JS.ORG for it. He already asked me to take it down on Twitter. Would you please make a statement?

[graingert]

Hey it's currently the weekend, but look at the commit I built this repo upon. I'm complying with license completely

[graingert]

My wow gh-pages branch includes the copyright notice and permission notice as required by the MIT license included:

https://github.com/graingert/WOW/tree/b4a21bd73ac7363490e7a4cfdaf1fb9271bcf2b0
https://github.com/graingert/WOW/blob/b4a21bd73ac7363490e7a4cfdaf1fb9271bcf2b0/LICENSE-MIT

[indus]

But it looks like you created it 2016-05-06T14:20:06Z (https://api.github.com/repos/graingert/wow) and this dates back to February.

[graingert]

also:

... if you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, you have accepted the Terms of Service which do allow other GitHub users some rights. Specifically, you allow others to view and fork your repository within the GitHub site.

[graingert]

@indus I don't understand your point. I forked the repo at the point when it was licensed under the MIT. You can't retroactively remove permission to use a licensed work.

[graingert]

This is why I have not been informed of a take-down request via GitHub.

[matthieua]

@graingert I just notified GitHub as well.

[indus]

Yes thats right but I don´t think that you can put a new licence on it (and you made it really big on the webpage). Don´t you understand that I´m not interested to get in any trouble like that for a free service. It would be nice if you could just remove it from JS.ORG by choice then it is up to you.

[graingert]

@indus I didn't put a new license on it, I just made the MIT license more obvious.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: ...

[indus]

Why do you think that there was an implicit MIT licence???

[graingert]

The MIT license was included when at the point that I forked the project:

https://github.com/graingert/WOW/tree/b4a21bd73ac7363490e7a4cfdaf1fb9271bcf2b0
https://github.com/graingert/WOW/blob/b4a21bd73ac7363490e7a4cfdaf1fb9271bcf2b0/LICENSE-MIT

[indus]

And what is that: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/graingert/WOW/master/LICENSE (linked from your page)

[graingert]

@indus I'm sublicensing the Software, as are my rights under the MIT license I received with the Software, and also in turn following the restrictions: including the notice and copyright statement.

[indus]

But at the time you forked it there was no MIT licence matthieua/WOW@20848c4

[graingert]

Yes there was https://github.com/matthieua/WOW/blob/20848c410fe32d161c2330e1d261b59512094f81/LICENSE-MIT

[indus]

It looks a bit eyewash when you can´t link to the master branch.

[graingert]

But that code doesn't include the permission

[indus]

While I have an opinion on this that obviously differs from yours what I really want is barly simple: Just keep JS.ORG out of this game.

[graingert]

@indus do you have an English translation of https://js.org/legals.html I want to know what my rights are on the js.org platform.

[indus]

The "Impressum" is only needed in Germany so you can have a look at the disclaimer

But after bringing it to this level I´m definitely making use of ToS $3 3.

JS.ORG may also terminate the provision of a certain or all subdomains. Concerned users will be notified at least 7 days in advance by an issue in their GitHub repository

see: graingert/WOW#5

[indus]

@matthieua I´m sorry but I will have to wait for a week to remove this subdomain. But my decission on that is irreversible. I hope you are not to upset.

[matthieua]

@indus No problem at all, thanks a lot for taking care of this, I really appreciate it. 👍

I am upset by @graingert's attitude, I just don't get it. 😢

[graingert]

@matthieua I'm upset by you! You're trying to take down a project that's non-infringing. I am only operating under permissions you granted me.

[indus]

Thats ok for me. I have the same feelings about you, too. And in fact thats the reason for revoking the permissions. I have stopped caring about this beeing an infringment or not two posts above. thought I was ment, sorry.

[danpalmer]

Can I suggest changing the name of this issue? "probably" seems to have been determined to be false. Maybe a statement/conclusion from JS.org about what exactly is happening, to clarify for other users of the platform.

[indus]

@danpalmer As stated in the ToS there is no need for any statement, but I will give one to clearify what my decision was based on.

While in my opinion this case is the abuse of a loophole, the licensing may in fact be technically correct.

The reason why I decided to remove the domain is that I´m not going to tolarate something that is/looks shady (even if I´m the only person that thinks so). Things like wow.js.org may reflect badly on JS.ORG reputation (I´m aware that this decision may also affect the way some people think about JS.ORG).
I don´t want to withhold that there is also a personal dimension that affected the decision as well. I´m investing my time and money to make this happen. From the vast majority of people I get positiv feedback and the feeling it is woth it, and I´m totaly happy with no feedback at all - but some just cost me more time and nerves that I´m willing to invest.

[graingert]

@indus I understand that this is your platform, and you are free to use it as you wish. I don't wish to cost you time and nerves.

[graingert]

@indus also I have requested that you contact me privately via Twitter.

[danpalmer]

@indus Thanks for the statement, much appreciated. I think it's important that JS.org record the reasons for this, and that it remain neutral from a licencing/legal standpoint, as if this were confused with being a licencing issue, that could dissuade others from trusting the platform.

[indus]

@graingert I read this to late, but also would have prefered an open discussion.

[indus]

FYI: 1abbbe5