OK, no problem, just wanted to state the facts.
> On 08 Dec 2015, at 13:36, Dimitris Chloupis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
