Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:44 AM, EuanM wrote: > "partially anonymous" > > The correct word is "pseudonimity". > > In UK law, as long as there is no intent to defraud, you can call > yourself anything you like. > > In UK, you can provide signatures digitally, completely legally.

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

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

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:47 AM, webwarrior 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

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

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

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

OK, no problem, just wanted to state the facts. > On 08 Dec 2015, at 13:36, Dimitris Chloupis 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"

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

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

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

On 08-12-15 00:47, webwarrior 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. I'm happy that you care enough about pharo and our community that you take the time to explain

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

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),

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

"What you lose is the right to take out your code (and to change the licensing of it retroactively…)." That is only true in one sense. 1) The author cannot demand that the code is removed from the codebase - as the original grant of licence was irrevocable. (Or at least, this is proven true in

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

"partially anonymous" The correct word is "pseudonimity". In UK law, as long as there is no intent to defraud, you can call yourself anything you like. In UK, you can provide signatures digitally, completely legally. UK law is has a long tradition of sorting out legal issues between two-third

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

On 12/07, webwarrior wrote: > It would be logical to make contribution to an open source project easy, > right? > Well, in bigger projects some burocracy is inevitable, but usually has some > valid reasons behind it. > > When I made some commits to Spec (while it was on github), it was as easy as

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

Hi webwarrior (or whatever your name now is ;) There is always room for improvements - even for better guidance on how to become a contributor. There are good reasons to do things the way they are done now - and yes some of them are not optimal because of history or because of sparse time.

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

Hi Stef, I think of it as a Pharo Driver's License: you can't drive without a license! I would think you would need to verify identity, so I am surprised a notarized image of a form of ID is not required: drivers license or passport. You would need this for any hotel or car rental. It's a

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

Hi, To be more specific: - Copyright is granted by law at creation time in most countries. - MIT is a license that works inside the copyright concept. - The copyright is preserved but the only thing the MIT imposes is the condition that authorship is retained whenever someone uses the code. This

[Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

It would be logical to make contribution to an open source project easy, right? Well, in bigger projects some burocracy is inevitable, but usually has some valid reasons behind it. When I made some commits to Spec (while it was on github), it was as easy as fork->commit->create pull request. In

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

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

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

Hello webwarrior It would be logical to make contribution to an open source project easy, right? Yes but not at the price of legal mess. Well, in bigger projects some burocracy is inevitable, but usually has some valid reasons behind it. We have strong reasons and they are quite baked by

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

This ensures the legal thing is no bull and that the rights are indeed MIT. There has been cases of problems and this ensured that lawyers could quickly sort things out. Phil On Dec 7, 2015 7:31 PM, "webwarrior" wrote: > It would be logical to make contribution to an open

Re: [Pharo-dev] License agreement - are you kidding me?

Hello webwarrior, Most of your claims are correct, and you could be the best coder but there *is* a trust factor. And part of such trust is built by making life easier to the core team. Maybe the pharo team could implement "closed verification" for cases like yours? Now how do we trust you do