Thanks for the heads up!

@yaron2 @artursouza this seems like it was introduced recently by PR #3158. Should this change be reverted?

Still need to consider adding a license checker in case this issue occurs again.

Thanks for the heads up!

@yaron2 @artursouza this seems like it was introduced recently by PR #3158. Should this change be reverted?

This is only used in the test (and thus not.compiled and distributed in our binaries).

We should not revert the entire PR, just rewrite the test.

Also thanks for reporting @notbasetwo

I mean, you could just use it before the license was added:
— @89z

Nope, before the License, it's All rights reserved.

The T&C of GH imply you can use it due to the fact it's in a public repository. You would probably need to add it as a submodule just in case, because the terms say the grant applies when accessed via the GH service.

See clause 5:

If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license.

Emphasis mine.

@Oppen - GH's terms of service do not override the library's license.

The T&C of GH imply you can use it due to the fact it's in a public repository. You would probably need to add it as a submodule just in case, because the terms say the grant applies when accessed via the GH service.

See clause 5:

If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license.

Emphasis mine.

The keyphrase here is "through the GitHub Service". That doesn't give you permission to use it on your own machine. It gives you permission to eye up the repository.

There are no complicated legal matters here - this is proprietary software with a license that does not permit it's usage. Even if on a technicality it may not stand up somewhere, it is also not in the spirit of FLOSS development to break the terms of a license.

@Oppen - GH's terms of service do not override the library's license.

No, but the agreement grants special rights besides the license. It's essentially similar to dual licensing 🤷

The keyphrase here is "through the GitHub Service". That doesn't give you permission to use it on your own machine.

That's true.

it is also not in the spirit of FLOSS development to break the terms of a license

That's a completely different discussion.

Thanks for the participation everyone, this is now closed with #3570.

I'm so sorry for my ignore to check package license,there are any way to auto check license when push a pr?I found some license check tools like google/go-licenses @yaron2

I'm so sorry for my ignore to check package license,there are any way to auto check license when push a pr?I found some license check tools like google/go-licenses @yaron2

Please, create an issue with this proposal. I think it is interesting.

I'm so sorry for my ignore to check package license,there are any way to auto check license when push a pr?I found some license check tools like google/go-licenses @yaron2

Please, create an issue with this proposal. I think it is interesting.

I had create the proposal issue #3591