Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> I think only Github's lawyers would interpret what GP posted the way you did. Looks like weasel wording to make such an interpretation possible,

So what are you suggesting here, except that Github is attempting a legal sleight-of-hand to hide real infringement?

> while making customers believe that code is more or less synthesized in realtime.

What are you suggesting here except that Github is (essentially) lying to customers, making them believe something that is substantially untrue?

When I say "building an engine to cynically exploit the IP rights of open source copyright holders for profit", I am talking about a scenario in which they are sweeping legitimate IP concerns under the rug with bad faith legal weaselry and misrepresentation of how the product functions, etc., to chase profit. I do not see how that is substantially different from the implications of your comment, especially in the context of this subthread.

Could you enlighten me as to how your intended meaning substantially differs from my interpretation? If you don't mean to accuse Github of malfeasance, we probably don't have much to discuss.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: