I don't want to add to this discussion, but when plain errors are written, I have to. I thought you were a lawyer ?
http://files.pharo.org/media/PharoSoftwareDistributionAgreement.pdf << The Parties agree that Supplier has contributed source code (the “Supplier’s Code”) for the open source software known as “Pharo” (the “Software”), and that Supplier retains all rights in and to Supplier’s Code, aside from the rights expressly granted to Distributor in this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that the Software in its entirety is a collective work containing source code contributions from several authors, and that Supplier’s Code is only a small component part of the Software work as a whole. Supplier hereby grants Distributor a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to distribute the Software, and specifically the Supplier’s Code therein, to end users, subject to the license agreement commonly known as the “MIT License” >> Nowhere it says that you lose your copyright !! Furthermore, this is a very simple document with no hidden agenda, it is a consequence of using the MIT license. > On 08 Dec 2015, at 10:54, Dimitris Chloupis <[email protected]> wrote: > > The one thing I dont like about that agreement is that it forces to retreat > from the personal copyright if I remember the document correctly. Even though > personally I would not mind that for bug fixes and small enhancements where > my copyright would not be so much of a big deal. For bigger tools and code > that I have put substantial effort and suffered pain to make them work I > would not give away my copyright. So I am not seeing myself signing this any > time soon either. > > Revealing my real name and some other stuff is not a problem. > > So I can certainly understand some of your frustration webwarrior. > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:44 AM [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:47 AM, webwarrior <[email protected]> wrote: > Considering that there are a couple of responses and the fact that you > guys are so easily offended, I will not answer everyone but just state > couple of theses. > > > 0. I will not reveal my real name, because I value privacy. Nickname is > sufficient for identification purposes. Any other information (real > name, address, etc.) is not needed for actually contributing code. Think > of principle of least privilege. > > 1. I could easily make up some human-looking name (Satoshi Nakamoto > anyone?), but will not do it out of principle (see #0). > > 2. Knowing contributor's "real" name would not guard you against any > possible malicious actions from him, because it can't be verified (see > #1). One can also make up address, and even signature, if needed, and I > bet no one would spot it. > > 3. I don't buy argument about requirements of some organizations. Linux > kernel is used in billions of devices and by countless organizations, > and I highly doubt that contributing to Linux requires anything like > singing an agreement or whatever. > > You'd be surprised. > > 4. Even in paid services checking a checkbox is usually sufficient for > accepting any license/ToS. > > 5. My intentions are mostly of pragmatic nature. To make things that I > use (and that can be useful to Pharo users) be in upstream. > > 6. I don't care whether you drink beer, your political views, or your > interpersonal relationships (however story with Benjamin shows that > perhaps everything's not as great as you paint it). These are all > irrelevant to Pharo development, from my point of view at least. > > 7. If you don't agree with my arguments and stick to your rules, go for > it. I'm in no position to tell you what's the right thing to do. I'll > just end this discussion and leave. > > Farewell then. > > Phil > > > View this message in context: Re: License agreement - are you kidding me? > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
