Forking public repository vs Copyright #2047

dprojects commented 2025年07月24日 21:20:58 +02:00

Comment

GitHub TOS, which is legally illegal, doesn't mention copyright or any recognition of the main creators. I understand that Microsoft wants to protect the interests of corporations and everyone who relies on open source, but unfortunately, it does so at the expense of creative people and, in a sense, brings legal problems to forks that will remain despite the license change.

So I would like to ask how you approach copyright and licensing changes when forking public repositories?
Does your approach differ from GitHub's?
Can I block forking public repository? remove them? What if I make public repository private or change license?

### Comment GitHub TOS, which is legally illegal, doesn't mention copyright or any recognition of the main creators. I understand that Microsoft [wants to protect the interests of corporations and everyone who relies on open source](https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/working-with-forks/fork-a-repo#use-someone-elses-project-as-a-starting-point-for-your-own-idea), but unfortunately, it does so at the expense of creative people and, in a sense, [brings legal problems to forks that will remain despite the license change](https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/working-with-forks/what-happens-to-forks-when-a-repository-is-deleted-or-changes-visibility#deleting-a-public-repository). So I would like to ask how you approach copyright and licensing changes when forking public repositories? Does your approach differ from GitHub's? Can I block forking public repository? remove them? What if I make public repository private or change license?

Gusted commented 2025年07月24日 22:28:38 +02:00

@dprojects wrote in #2047 (comment):

So I would like to ask how you approach copyright and licensing changes when forking public repositories?

Codeberg doesn't have any specific Terms of Use about forks. They are, as far as the Terms of Use is concerned, normal repositories.

@dprojects wrote in #2047 (comment):

Does your approach differ from GitHub's?

If you are more specific than it would be possible to answer this question.

@dprojects wrote in #2047 (comment):

Can I block forking public repository? remove them?

No, that's not possible.

@dprojects wrote in #2047 (comment):

What if I make public repository private or change license?

If you make it private then all forks become private. If you change the license then all previous content is still covered under the previous license and forks could be based of on that.

@dprojects wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2047#issue-1971619: > So I would like to ask how you approach copyright and licensing changes when forking public repositories? Codeberg doesn't have any specific Terms of Use about forks. They are, as far as the Terms of Use is concerned, normal repositories. @dprojects wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2047#issue-1971619: > Does your approach differ from GitHub's? If you are more specific than it would be possible to answer this question. @dprojects wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2047#issue-1971619: > Can I block forking public repository? remove them? No, that's not possible. @dprojects wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2047#issue-1971619: > What if I make public repository private or change license? If you make it private then all forks become private. If you change the license then all previous content is still covered under the previous license and forks could be based of on that.

dprojects commented 2025年07月24日 23:13:03 +02:00

It's a pity that there's no way to block forks to the public repository, because that would allow open source code to be managed legally without exposing users to legal consequences due to license changes.

If you make it private then all forks become private. If you change the license then all previous content is still covered under the previous license and forks could be based of on that.

So this sounds different, more legal to me, because at GitHub:

If a public repository is made private, its public forks are split off into a new network. As with deleting a public repository, one of the existing public forks is chosen to be the new upstream repository and all other repositories are forked off of this new upstream. Subsequent pull requests go to this new upstream repository. 

It's a pity that there's no way to block forks to the public repository, because that would allow open source code to be managed legally without exposing users to legal consequences due to license changes. > If you make it private then all forks become private. If you change the license then all previous content is still covered under the previous license and forks could be based of on that. So this sounds different, more legal to me, [because at GitHub](https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/working-with-forks/what-happens-to-forks-when-a-repository-is-deleted-or-changes-visibility#changing-a-public-repository-to-a-private-repository): If a public repository is made private, its public forks are split off into a new network. As with deleting a public repository, one of the existing public forks is chosen to be the new upstream repository and all other repositories are forked off of this new upstream. Subsequent pull requests go to this new upstream repository.

Gusted commented 2025年07月24日 23:33:20 +02:00

@dprojects wrote in #2047 (comment):

It's a pity that there's no way to block forks to the public repository, because that would allow open source code to be managed legally without exposing users to legal consequences due to license changes.

What kind of legal consequences would forks be exposed to due to license changes? Forks aren't automatically updated and would still be using a older revision that is licensed under the previous license.

@dprojects wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2047#issuecomment-5980765: > It's a pity that there's no way to block forks to the public repository, because that would allow open source code to be managed legally without exposing users to legal consequences due to license changes. What kind of legal consequences would forks be exposed to due to license changes? Forks aren't automatically updated and would still be using a older revision that is licensed under the previous license.

dprojects commented 2025年07月25日 17:13:15 +02:00

Forks aren't automatically updated and would still be using a older revision that is licensed under the previous license.

It's true that, in a sense, the law isn't retroactive, and if the code was released under a specific license, that license applies. However, it's also important to remember that the author has the right to change the license at any time, and the previous license doesn't have to be valid forever.

What kind of legal consequences would forks be exposed to due to license changes?

However, the real problems begin when a public repository is made private, or even worse, when the author deletes the account. In such a case, forks are orphaned and technically impossible to attribute their true authorship. Therefore, such a public fork misleads everyone about the actual authorship of the code. Furthermore, if it is forked, it may be completely illegal in terms of true authorship, and at best, compensation can be claimed for such actions.

It's common knowledge that Microsoft is a powerful company and the average person doesn't stand a chance in court. However, a situation could arise where a very popular public repository, worth millions, decides to change its license or disappear from GitHub. This could lead to legal disputes and high-profile media cases, and as a result, Microsoft, in the best-case scenario, would be forced to change its ToS or pay out hefty damages and go out of business due to insolvency.

Because it's also unknown how the market will react if it turns out that the repositories on which its products were based were illegal.

I don't know your business model, I don't know how you make money, but I personally would recommend adding an option to block forks and pull requests, and to delete public forks. This would give the true author full control over their code and the license change.

For now, although I know that Microsoft operates illegally in this area, I have no intention of moving from GitHub. However, your pages load faster and there's no phone security, which I prefer. It's unclear what GitHub's future will be; sooner or later, there's bound to be a scandal, and it would be nice if you were a better, more legal alternative.

> Forks aren't automatically updated and would still be using a older revision that is licensed under the previous license. It's true that, in a sense, the law isn't retroactive, and if the code was released under a specific license, that license applies. However, it's also important to remember that the author has the right to change the license at any time, and the previous license doesn't have to be valid forever. > What kind of legal consequences would forks be exposed to due to license changes? However, the real problems begin when a public repository is made private, or even worse, when the author deletes the account. In such a case, forks are orphaned and technically impossible to attribute their true authorship. Therefore, such a public fork misleads everyone about the actual authorship of the code. Furthermore, if it is forked, it may be completely illegal in terms of true authorship, and at best, compensation can be claimed for such actions. It's common knowledge that Microsoft is a powerful company and the average person doesn't stand a chance in court. However, a situation could arise where a very popular public repository, worth millions, decides to change its license or disappear from GitHub. This could lead to legal disputes and high-profile media cases, and as a result, Microsoft, in the best-case scenario, would be forced to change its ToS or pay out hefty damages and go out of business due to insolvency. Because it's also unknown how the market will react if it turns out that the repositories on which its products were based were illegal. I don't know your business model, I don't know how you make money, but **I personally would recommend adding an option to block forks and pull requests, and to delete public forks. This would give the true author full control over their code and the license change.** For now, although I know that Microsoft operates illegally in this area, I have no intention of moving from GitHub. However, your pages load faster and there's no phone security, which I prefer. It's unclear what GitHub's future will be; sooner or later, there's bound to be a scandal, and it would be nice if you were a better, more legal alternative.

gedankenstuecke commented 2025年07月25日 19:31:19 +02:00

@dprojects wrote in #2047 (comment):

However, the real problems begin when a public repository is made private, or even worse, when the author deletes the account. In such a case, forks are orphaned and technically impossible to attribute their true authorship. Therefore, such a public fork misleads everyone about the actual authorship of the code. Furthermore, if it is forked, it may be completely illegal in terms of true authorship, and at best, compensation can be claimed for such actions.

I don't think this the case: Forks maintain the whole Git history, alongside the original copyright/licensing information of the parent repository, even if that parent repository would be deleted/made private, so the authorship and licensing information is preserved.

I think the "forked from" display on the front-end of Forgejo (which you seem concerned with) is instead merely a convenience for users, not a legal attribution.

@dprojects wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2047#issuecomment-5988202: > However, the real problems begin when a public repository is made private, or even worse, when the author deletes the account. In such a case, forks are orphaned and technically impossible to attribute their true authorship. Therefore, such a public fork misleads everyone about the actual authorship of the code. Furthermore, if it is forked, it may be completely illegal in terms of true authorship, and at best, compensation can be claimed for such actions. I don't think this the case: Forks maintain the whole Git history, alongside the original copyright/licensing information of the parent repository, even if that parent repository would be deleted/made private, so the authorship and licensing information is preserved. I think the "forked from" display on the front-end of Forgejo (which you seem concerned with) is instead merely a convenience for users, not a legal attribution.

dprojects commented 2025年07月25日 19:48:24 +02:00

I don't think this the case: Forks maintain the whole Git history, alongside the original copyright/licensing information of the parent repository, even if that parent repository would be deleted/made private, so the authorship and licensing information is preserved.

Everything looks fine until such a case actually reaches the courts. Of course, the verdict will depend on the publicity of the case and the power of the plaintiff, so I wouldn't rule this case in Microsoft's favor. Historically, many powerful companies have faced copyright infringement lawsuits and been forced to pay fines.

For now, the current situation is quite pathological, as creative people who lack sufficient legal support are providing ideas for paid programs and corporations that profit from their ideas, while the originators themselves end up with nothing.

I think the "forked from" display on the front-end of Forgejo (which you seem concerned with) is instead merely a convenience for users, not a legal attribution.

Yes, codeberg.org seems to be more legal, because public fork will be hidden, after author repository hide... but I don't how it works in practice here, so this why I was asking...

> I don't think this the case: Forks maintain the whole Git history, alongside the original copyright/licensing information of the parent repository, even if that parent repository would be deleted/made private, so the authorship and licensing information is preserved. Everything looks fine until such a case actually reaches the courts. Of course, the verdict will depend on the publicity of the case and the power of the plaintiff, so I wouldn't rule this case in Microsoft's favor. Historically, many powerful companies have faced copyright infringement lawsuits and been forced to pay fines. For now, the current situation is quite pathological, as creative people who lack sufficient legal support are providing ideas for paid programs and corporations that profit from their ideas, while the originators themselves end up with nothing. > I think the "forked from" display on the front-end of Forgejo (which you seem concerned with) is instead merely a convenience for users, not a legal attribution. Yes, [codeberg.org](https://codeberg.org) seems to be more legal, because public fork will be hidden, after author repository hide... but I don't how it works in practice here, so this why I was asking...

bkil commented 2025年08月13日 10:19:47 +02:00

Just for context, when you upload your content to GitHub, you grant the following rights to others. I.e., this still applies if the repository contains no LICENSE, COPYING or AUTHORS information.
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users

Just for context, when you upload your content to GitHub, you grant the following rights to others. I.e., this still applies if the repository contains no LICENSE, COPYING or AUTHORS information. https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users

dprojects commented 2025年08月13日 11:29:57 +02:00

@bkil wrote in #2047 (comment):

https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users

I know what the open source world looks like, but that doesn't mean it's good or legal. Exploitation and reliance on someone else's free work by corporations that implement "other people's" solutions as "their own" in their private code without disclosing copyright information is illegal. Creators should be profiting from their ideas, not politicians and secret services.

But thanks for this link so I can step by step:

Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).

If the author make repository public it means it is public, open source, visible publicly, in fact nothing more... if there is no clear license attached to the code.

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).

In Polish law, this is called an "abusive clause", which is not legally binding user and is in fact legally illegal. This stems from the fact that no service can "blackmail" a user and "force" them to give up their copyright. Furthermore, copyrights can only be transferred at the author's discretion, not through some "deceitful and hidden" contractual clause.

This is simply criminal. The operation of services such as GitHub is based on the fact that people who publish content there do not have sufficient financial resources and legal support, especially in the US, to sue Microsoft. But... I'm almost certain that Microsoft will have serious legal problems because of this in the future.

@bkil wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2047#issuecomment-6295030: > https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users I know what the open source world looks like, but that doesn't mean it's good or legal. Exploitation and reliance on someone else's free work by corporations that implement "other people's" solutions as "their own" in their private code without disclosing copyright information is illegal. **Creators should be profiting from their ideas, not politicians and secret services.** But thanks for this link so I can step by step: > Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control). If the author make repository public it means it is public, open source, visible publicly, in fact nothing more... if there is no clear license attached to the code. > 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). In Polish law, this is called an **"abusive clause", which is not legally binding user and is in fact legally illegal**. This stems from the fact that no service can "blackmail" a user and "force" them to give up their copyright. Furthermore, copyrights can only be transferred at the author's discretion, not through some "deceitful and hidden" contractual clause. This is simply criminal. The operation of services such as GitHub is based on the fact that people who publish content there do not have sufficient financial resources and legal support, especially in the US, to sue Microsoft. But... **I'm almost certain that Microsoft will have serious legal problems because of this in the future.**

bkil commented 2025年08月13日 11:57:10 +02:00

These terms were present way before the Microsoft acquisition, so they always applied to you if you registered earlier. Nobody forced you to register on GitHub or to upload your work there.

• https://web.archive.org/web/20080619081607/http://github.com/site/terms#:~:text=Content%20Ownership
• https://web.archive.org/web/20120613184929/help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service#:~:text=Content%20Ownership
• https://web.archive.org/web/20180530155030/https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#5-license-grant-to-other-users

These terms were present way before the Microsoft acquisition, so they always applied to you if you registered earlier. Nobody forced you to register on GitHub or to upload your work there. * https://web.archive.org/web/20080619081607/http://github.com/site/terms#:~:text=Content%20Ownership * https://web.archive.org/web/20120613184929/help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service#:~:text=Content%20Ownership * https://web.archive.org/web/20180530155030/https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#5-license-grant-to-other-users

dprojects commented 2025年08月13日 14:50:44 +02:00

@bkil wrote in #2047 (comment):

These terms were present way before the Microsoft acquisition, so they always applied to you if you registered earlier. Nobody forced you to register on GitHub or to upload your work there.

* https://web.archive.org/web/20080619081607/http://github.com/site/terms#:~:text=Content%20Ownership
* https://web.archive.org/web/20120613184929/help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service#:~:text=Content%20Ownership
* https://web.archive.org/web/20180530155030/https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#5-license-grant-to-other-users

It doesn't matter whether the ToS rules were made earlier or later. Currently, Microsoft owns the GitHub, and any lawsuits or potential legal disputes will be brought against Microsoft.

Law is established by the parliament, by the governments of a given country, written into statutes, and reviewed by the courts. Law is not established by private regulations, private companies, or moderators. No private regulations can ever be above the law. And the law clearly states that "management" of copyright belongs to the author.

@bkil wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2047#issuecomment-6304174: > These terms were present way before the Microsoft acquisition, so they always applied to you if you registered earlier. Nobody forced you to register on GitHub or to upload your work there. > > * https://web.archive.org/web/20080619081607/http://github.com/site/terms#:~:text=Content%20Ownership > > * https://web.archive.org/web/20120613184929/help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service#:~:text=Content%20Ownership > > * https://web.archive.org/web/20180530155030/https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#5-license-grant-to-other-users It doesn't matter whether the ToS rules were made earlier or later. Currently, Microsoft owns the GitHub, and any lawsuits or potential legal disputes will be brought against Microsoft. Law is established by the parliament, by the governments of a given country, written into statutes, and reviewed by the courts. Law is not established by private regulations, private companies, or moderators. **No private regulations can ever be above the law**. And the law clearly states that **"management" of copyright belongs to the author**.

fnetX commented 2025年08月13日 17:22:40 +02:00

Codeberg cannot offer legal assistance in this case. Your concerns seem of theoretical nature, and I suggest to seek a lawyer if you need an answer for the specific questions.

Codeberg cannot offer legal assistance in this case. Your concerns seem of theoretical nature, and I suggest to seek a lawyer if you need an answer for the specific questions.