DOE v. Github (original complaint) Court Filing, retrieved on November 3, 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 21 of 37. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here VII. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS H. GitHub Was Designed to Cater to Open-Source Projects 110. By 2002, Linux had become immensely popular. But the project itself had become unwieldy and had outgrown its reliance on informal systems of managing software source code (also known as source-control systems). The Linux community needed something better. 111. Linus Torvalds set about writing a new source-control system. He named his new system Git. He released it under the GPL. It quickly became the source-control system of choice for open-source programmers. 112. A single software project stored in Git is called a source repository, commonly shortened to repository or just repo. A Git source repository would typically be stored on a networked server accessible to a group of programmers. 113. This became less convenient, however, when programmers were distributed among multiple locations, rather than being in a single location. A Git repository could be stored on an internet-accessible server. But setting up that server hardware and being responsible for it was inconvenient and expensive. 114. In 2008, a group of open-source developers in San Francisco, California founded GitHub. GitHub managed internet servers that hosted Git source repositories. With an account at GitHub, an open-source developer could easily set up a Git project accessible to collaborators anywhere in the world. From early on, GitHub’s core market was open-source developers, whom it attracted by making many of its hosting services free. 115. Most open-source programmers used GitHub to create “public” repositories, meaning that anyone could view them & access them. GitHub also allowed programmers and organizations to create “private” repositories, which were not accessible from the public GitHub website, and required password access. 116. Open-source licensing was integral to GitHub. GitHub encouraged open-source developers to understand and use open-source licenses for their work. Many—though not all— public repositories on GitHub carry an open-source license. By convention, this license is stored at the top level of each repository in a file called LICENSE. GitHub’s interface also includes a button on the front pages of most repositories users can click to see details of the applicable license. A human user could easily find the license in either of these locations—as could an AI anywhere near as powerful as Codex or Copilot. 117. Though the GPL is one of the early open-source licenses and remains common, it’s not the only open-source license. Examples of other common open-source licenses include the MIT License, the Apache License, and the Berkeley Software Distribution License (all of which are included in the Suggested Licenses). 118. Though these licenses differ in their wording and their details, most of them share a requirement that a copy of the license be included with any copy, derivative, or redistribution of the software, and that the author’s name and copyright notice remains intact. This is not a controversial requirement of open-source licenses—indeed, it has been an integral part of the GPL for over 30 years. 119. There are also many public repositories on GitHub that have no license. Though GitHub has encouraged awareness of licenses among its users, it has never imposed a default license on public repositories. A public repository without a license is subject to ordinary rules of U.S. copyright. 120. Open-source developers flocked to GitHub. By 2018, GitHub had become the largest and most successful Git hosting service, hosting millions of users and projects. 121. In October 2018, Microsoft acquired GitHub for $7.5 billion. It was important to Microsoft that programmers use GitHub. Microsoft had developed a well-deserved poor reputation because of its documented vaporware, FUD, and other business practices, including those targeted at open source programs and programming, and open-source licensing specifically. Microsoft made false and misleading statements and omissions to assuage such concerns, including its primary mantra intended to win over the open-source community: “Microsoft Loves Open Source.” Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 3:22-cv-06823-KAW retrieved on September 5, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Storage.Courtlistener

How Microsoft Misled the Public By Professing Love for Open Source

Too Long; Didn't Read

Legal PDF

About Author

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN...

How Microsoft Misled the Public By Professing Love for Open Source

Too Long; Didn't Read

About Author

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN...

RELATED STORIES