Compare content moderation governance provisions between GitHub and Cursor. Provisions are extracted from monitored governance documents and classified by severity.
This provision establishes the scope of rights that GitHub users receive in public repositories and allocates responsibility for licensing compliance. It defines the operational permissions users obtain when accessing publicly posted content and clarifies that content authors bear responsibility for obtaining appropriate upstream licenses before uploading third-party material.
Consumer impact
Users who set repositories to public grant all GitHub users the stated reproduction and display rights in their content within the GitHub platform. Users who upload third-party content assume the obligation to verify that such content is licensed under terms permitting these uses by other GitHub users.
Opt-out available
No opt-out available
Actual clause text
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. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users.
AI-extracted from source document. Verify against original for legal use.
No Content Moderation clause found in our archive for this platform.
AI Difference AnalysisCompliance
Stripe's arbitration clause is narrower than Amazon's in one key respect: it includes a small claims court carve-out that Amazon's clause does not. PayPal's clause is the most aggressive of the three, explicitly waiving jury trial rights in addition to class action rights. From a compliance perspective, Amazon presents the lowest risk for B2B contracts while PayPal creates the highest exposure for consumer-facing applications subject to CFPB oversight.