I stand corrected , my memory fails me again. Agreed the document looks fine , I never talked about hidden agendas. I thinking I mixed up the "royalty-free" with the copyright part. My bad :)
Absolutely no problem signing this. On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:13 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > >
