so, first of all, I find the way you communicate your arguments a bit… well, not very polite. second, even Ben’s affaire should show you why we value this license agreements. third, French laws are French laws and since the development of Pharo is in a big extent made here (through INRIA), French laws needs to be fulfilled. And no, there are no exceptions… we wouldn’t be able to operate here without that: French law does not recognise digital signatures, checkbox or anything that comes from the “virtual world” (we have a lot of funny examples of things we decide to to request from other EU countries because if we request it here, we need to send them a contract by mail). four, no copyright is lost. Your code keeps your name, etc. What you lose is the right to take out your code (and to change the licensing of it retroactively…). five, nobody forces you to do anything. I’m really sorry you take this as a personal prosecution (or a personal battle)… while I value all contributions and discussions (and I certainly would like you continue contributing), I find the tone of your reclamation a little bit out-of-the-tone of a real argumentation… kind of trollish… so I wonder if you really want to discuss something or not…
cheers! Esteban > On 08 Dec 2015, at 00:47, webwarrior <r...@webwarrior.ws> 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. > > 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. > > View this message in context: Re: License agreement - are you kidding me? > <http://forum.world.st/License-agreement-are-you-kidding-me-tp4865853p4865912.html> > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive > <http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html> at > Nabble.com.
