[promiseofbeans]

> This repository is a public mirror. All development is happening elsewhere.

So if I have code on a personal (but publicly exposed) git server with a license that includes the above quoted terms, and someone decides they want to be helpful and publish a public read-only mirror of my code to GitHub, then they’re allowed to accept that license on my behalf? I never did a thing and yet I’m now in a contract with Microsoft? How does this work legally?

[gpm]

Not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure:

1. Microsoft does not gain the license, but will be able to argue that they aren't intentionally committing copyright infringement in the cases where that distinction matters.

2. If Microsoft does something resulting in damages because they thought they had a license, their indemnification clause kicks in and they can recoup those damages from the user who uploaded it (to the extent that that user doesn't go bankrupt anyways)

3. Likely none of this matters because your license can't prevent activities that weren't prohibited by copyright in the first place, and training doesn't appear to be a prohibited activity at least under US law.

[exitb]

When code is published on GitHub, GitHub itself is not bound by the public-facing license, but rather license grants the uploader aggress to as part of the terms of service. That points to the uploader as a responsible party.

In practice though, none of that is even remotely enforceable.