GitHub Licensing Disputes

Did you forget the part where this code is MIT-licensed? Yes, they don't own it, but the code is still 'theirs' to keep forever as they see fit.

Isn't the github way of doing things: You add a copyright notice to your code, identifying your repository as the source, and changing the copyright is illegal? That would be applicable to this as well.

It's under the MIT license and in a public github repo - shouldn't that be enough? If you don't want your code public, don't put it in a public repo (if you can't afford a private one, just use git locally) and certainly don't stick an open-source license on it.

As others have said - long as proper attribution is provided in the finished product, it's within the terms of the license that you put up. In the future:* If you don't want your code available to the public, use a private repository - either Github's paid plans or Bitbucket (free private repos) or something similar.* If you want your code publicly available, but not to be used in this way, use a different license - GPL/LGPL, CC BY-NC-SA, etc. Research to figure out whi

If your code does not contain an explicit license, it is by default “All rights reserved”, I.e not open-source or free.For op, they are obviously in violation of the MIT open-source requirements, but unfortunately the ramifications for this are usually minimal.

The Github terms do not indicate that the license is transferable. Github can display the code, but even if someone downloads from Github, they still can't use it.

Why does this give OP the right to violate the author's copyright by posting it to Github?

There is no conflict here. The quote from Github's ToS means you allow others to copy the source code you've made public, it cannot and does not give you any rights regarding what you do with the code beyond that. Points one and two of the Winamp license quote are essentially one and the same, just worded in a different way for clarity.

github TOS do not grant you use of others code. it grants distribution. those are two very different things.

Not all code on GitHub was uploaded by the copyright holder. The entire linux kernel is on GitHub and at least some of those copyright holders have never explicitly granted a license to GitHub beyond the GPL.