License issues
StevenBlack opened this issue · 12 comments
Your license is incompatible with most, perhaps all, the host sources you list and aggregate here.
You need to review and fix that, because that is a very serious offense.
Also, why two license files? This is another sign that this needs review, and correction.
Hey @StevenBlack
Thanks for pointing out the issue. Can you kindly explain more? I'm not that familiar with licensing stuffs! Care to suggest a compatible license for us?
To add more, I will update the repo soon. Here's our main repo.
I am not a lawyer, @AdroitAdorKhan. At the moment, you probably need one.
In the meantime, I suggest removing all your license files from this repo, and remove all references to licensing that you introduced into the headers of other files in this repo.
Then, once you've figured out how this repo can be properly licensed, you can re-introduce licensing.
@AdroitAdorKhan normally issues are closed when they are resolved.
Maybe you do things differently.
Shall I report you to Github now? Because you are in clear violation of Github Terms of Service, section D – User-Generated Content with respect to my work, and the work of several others.
By closing this issue, you leave me with little choice.
Thank you.
@AdroitAdorKhan normally issues are closed when they are resolved.
Maybe you do things differently.
Shall I report you to Github now? Because you are in clear violation of Github Terms of Service, section D – User-Generated Content with respect to my work, and the work of several others.
By closing this issue, you leave me with little choice.
No. I was just about to fix the licensing. As I'm a student, can't really hire any lawyer. As you are experienced, will it be fine if I license it under MIT? Really need suggestion.
Hey, my list is in this list. First, your are linking to my aggressive list, not my regular ads and tracking list, which is the one I recommend people to use. The aggressive list, is well, aggressive. Also its pretty small since I rarely add to it. I recommend using my regular extended ads and tracking list.
Ok, back to the subject at hand. My lists are licensed under the Apache 2.0 license. You can read it here: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 (as stated very clearly at the top of all my lists). Section 4 goes over the rules of redistributing my list.
- Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:
a. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
b. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
c. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
d. If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.
You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.
So basically, if you preserve my license comments within the sections of hosts that contains my content, then that would satisfy requirement 4a and 4b. For 4c, you are already stating my license within the README next to the section that is giving me attribution credit, so that works for me.
# Collection of Analytics, Ads, and tracking hosts to block.
#
# Title: Lightswitch05's tracking-aggressive-extended.txt
# Released: 2019-04-08T04:25:10+00:00
# Count: 2885 domains
# Details: https://github.com/lightswitch05/hosts
# Issues: https://github.com/lightswitch05/hosts/issues
# Source: https://www.github.developerdan.com/hosts/lists/tracking-aggressive-extended.txt
# Expires: 2 days
#
# Copyright 2019 Daniel White
#
# Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
# you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
# You may obtain a copy of the License at
#
# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
#
# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
# limitations under the License.
I can't speak for the license requirements of Stephen's project or the other projects you use here. And if you don't comply, I don't have any plans at the moment to take any action on it. But strictly speaking, if I or someone else you use in the project wanted to take action, then we could submit a DMCA request to github to remove this project since it is in violation of my clearly stated license. Also, I am not a lawyer, and this advice is general in nature and not to be taken as personal professional advice.
It is kinda a bummer your taking donations for this project though since almost (or all?) of the content is sourced from other places.
@lightswitch05 I will fix these license issues on next update. I need some free time to do that.
I will also change your source to the regular one.
And, for the donation thing, we barely get any and we are using them to keep our web server alive. You know, being a student and maintaining a server is pretty expensive.
We have also clearly stated 'This donation is for our services, not for any pack, resource or any other mean. Your support will help us keep the project running and provide you quality service.' Hope you will get this!
I would think the Creative Commons license you chose is more appropriate for works of art- as if it has a large degree of originality by you.
I think if you published under the MIT as StevenBlack does & put up a list on your readme.md in the same format as he has done - where you list out the license type of each list- you'd be good. I'm not a lawyer but I wouldn't think it would hurt to be forthcoming with this sort of information on the sources.
I think it's maybe that you license under a more restrictive license than the lists you pull from. ex: You can sublicense an MIT work but then CC-BY-SA you cannot.
Other possible licenses: Apache, Do what the F*** You Want (WTFPL), Unlicense, maybe GPL's, CC-BY (not the SA one), CC-Zero
Again, I'm not a lawyer. I just looked around for maybe 30 minutes.
@jawz101 Thanks for this! Really appreciated!
I think there shouldn't be any issue with the license anymore. I have changed the License to MIT and the scripts that are written and maintained by our team, are licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
@gorhill I think this resolves the issue now.