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 Pharo, it's already more complicated: you have to register yourself in SmalltalkHub, in fogbugz, in mailing lists. Slices system is also not very intuitive. Then CI system spits out some completely unrelated errors. But OK, I understand that Pharo is unlike, and the team maybe doesn't have time to migrate to some integrated bugtracker/repository/whatever. Then people began asking me of my real name - which is already wierd - why would they need it? And then someone suggested that I must sign license agreement (which is also wierd - MIT license doesn't demand anything like that). I looked at that agreeement. It requires you to provide name, address (???), sgin it and send it via snail mail (WTF???). No, guys, that is beyond good and evil. Either we skip this stupid formality and continue working on the code, or I'm out of this. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/License-agreement-are-you-kidding-me-tp4865853.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
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" <reg@webwarrior.ws> 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 fork->commit->create pull request. In Pharo, it's already more complicated: you have to register yourself in SmalltalkHub, in fogbugz, in mailing lists. Slices system is also not very intuitive. Then CI system spits out some completely unrelated errors.
But OK, I understand that Pharo is unlike, and the team maybe doesn't have time to migrate to some integrated bugtracker/repository/whatever.
Then people began asking me of my real name - which is already wierd - why would they need it?
And then someone suggested that I must sign license agreement (which is also wierd - MIT license doesn't demand anything like that).
I looked at that agreeement. It requires you to provide name, address (???), sgin it and send it via snail mail (WTF???).
No, guys, that is beyond good and evil. Either we skip this stupid formality and continue working on the code, or I'm out of this.
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/License-agreement-are-you-kidding-me-tp4865853.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
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 implies that we need to know all owners of the code so that we can properly mention them. - The reason why we need you to sign a physical copy is that the body that releases the code, is a French institution, and in France only physical signatures count. Itâs law. We know it is not comfortable, but historically we had problems with the legalities of releasing the code as MIT. The current solution was chosen to ensure that we do not run into any legal problems for the long run. Cheers, Doru
On Dec 7, 2015, at 1:40 PM, philippe.back@highoctane.be <philippe.back@gmail.com> wrote:
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" <reg@webwarrior.ws> 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 fork->commit->create pull request. In Pharo, it's already more complicated: you have to register yourself in SmalltalkHub, in fogbugz, in mailing lists. Slices system is also not very intuitive. Then CI system spits out some completely unrelated errors.
But OK, I understand that Pharo is unlike, and the team maybe doesn't have time to migrate to some integrated bugtracker/repository/whatever.
Then people began asking me of my real name - which is already wierd - why would they need it?
And then someone suggested that I must sign license agreement (which is also wierd - MIT license doesn't demand anything like that).
I looked at that agreeement. It requires you to provide name, address (???), sgin it and send it via snail mail (WTF???).
No, guys, that is beyond good and evil. Either we skip this stupid formality and continue working on the code, or I'm out of this.
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/License-agreement-are-you-kidding-me-tp4865853.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Being happy is a matter of choice."
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 experience. Read below.
When I made some commits to Spec (while it was on github), it was as easy as fork->commit->create pull request.
And so what? Even if tomorrow Pharo will be on git and work on pull request. Do not expect that you will not have to sign a license agreement.
In Pharo, it's already more complicated: you have to register yourself in SmalltalkHub, in fogbugz, in mailing lists. Not in mailing-lists. Fogbugz is a professional bug tracker. The company offered it to us. It costs 25$ per month per seat. I thank them for that :). Even if I sometimes hate its interface. I lowers our energy to work to something else than a buggy bug server. Slices system is also not very intuitive. Well saving a composite packages to help us manage changes is not that difficult. Press the +slice, enter the number, select the package to save + save. It should ok. Then CI system spits out some completely unrelated errors. To you think that we are not burned ourselves by such errors? Seriously?
But OK, I understand that Pharo is unlike, and the team maybe doesn't have time to migrate to some integrated bugtracker/repository/whatever. We will keep fogbugz because it is working well and it contains important discussions.
Then people began asking me of my real name - which is already wierd - why would they need it?
I asked you because I prefer to talk to real people and I do not want to be manipulated. Let us imagine that a nasty person would like to hurt Pharo, using a pseudo, and publish stolen GPL code and that we use it and after a while this pseudo disappears and somebody else declare: oh pharo is bad because they steal GPL code so all Pharo is GPL. You see when Ben changed the license of Spec he really wanted to damage us. We had to ask layywers to take actions. And frankly we have something else to do. Do you think that it would be better that I'm called BozoTheClown? I prefer that people understand that when I do a statement this is me that is doing it. Now you can keep you pseudo but we should not accept your code until you sign the license agreement (even if any code publish in the pharo repo is declared as MIT).
And then someone suggested that I must sign license agreement (which is also wierd - MIT license doesn't demand anything like that).
In the past, we got **burned** by the licensing problems of Squeak. I remember spending something like 30 emails by linux conferences to have the possibility to present Squeak. I had a folder full of such emails. Just because the license of Squeak mentioned fonts that were not even in Squeak anymore. Then ViewPoint spent a year collecting author agreements so that their code could be relicensed into MIT. We then (thanks Gabriel Cotelli) did blind rewrite of orphan methods. Now we have something else to do - see again.
I looked at that agreeement. It requires you to provide name, address (???), sgin it and send it via snail mail (WTF???). We took the agreement that was used for Squeak by ViewPoint research. Their laywers are probably right. You can scan it and send it to us. You can put a fake address if you want.
No, guys, that is beyond good and evil. Either we skip this stupid formality and continue working on the code, or I'm out of this.
I'm sorry but we do not accept code into Pharo from people that did not sign the license agreement. We accept as a temporarily measure that you acknowledge that the code is MIT when you publish to the Pharo repo. Now I found the tone of your email a bit misplaced. The Pharo community is a community of friendly people. We know and appreciate each other. We drink beers together and have fun. We are building great software and enjoy it. If printing or even editing a pdf and sending a pdf is a problem for you, do not do it. But it would have taken you, the time to write this mail and everybody would be happy. I imagine that you understand that we do not do that for the fun of it. I prefer to code. Stef PS: I would be forcing everybody to use PGP for email and code, if you ask 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. Lamenting partially anonymous from the outside is neither useful nor polite. Working as a real member/part of the community on the other side can help us all to move forward step by step with a better open source project. If you or any other is really interested in moving with us the registration or signature for sure will not be the show stopper.
Either we skip this stupid formality and continue working on the code, or I'm out of this.
As Stef explained this was not done to bug people or keep them away. We know that it might be cumbersome at first sight - but hey, many people mastered this easily. I guess we even have people who do not drink beer but wine instead :) You can decide on your own how to proceed. Turn away or return. I guess there is only one big hurdle and this one is on your side ;) As you see friendly people continue to invest their time answering your mails although you as the author not even have the time (or will) to reveal your name. IMHO if someone wants to participate in an open source project he has to be "open" on its own side first. It's up to you... Thanks T.
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: http://forum.world.st/License-agreement-are-you-kidding-me-tp4865853p4865912... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
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 not want to corrupt the behavior of the critical code base? Do you have inner source? Hernán 2015-12-07 20:47 GMT-03:00 webwarrior <reg@webwarrior.ws>:
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...>
Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive <http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html> at Nabble.com.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:47 AM, webwarrior <reg@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.
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? <http://forum.world.st/License-agreement-are-you-kidding-me-tp4865853p4865912...> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive <http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html> at Nabble.com.
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 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:47 AM, webwarrior <reg@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.
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? <http://forum.world.st/License-agreement-are-you-kidding-me-tp4865853p4865912...> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive <http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html> at Nabble.com.
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 âSupplierâs Codeâ) for the open source software known as âPharoâ (the âSoftwareâ), and that Supplier retains all rights in and to Supplierâs 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 Supplierâs 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 Supplierâs Code therein, to end users, subject to the license agreement commonly known as the âMIT Licenseâ >> 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 <kilon.alios@gmail.com> 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 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:47 AM, webwarrior <reg@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.
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.
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 <sven@stfx.eu> 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 âSupplierâs Codeâ) for the open source software known as âPharoâ (the âSoftwareâ), and that Supplier retains all rights in and to Supplierâs 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 Supplierâs 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 Supplierâs Code therein, to end users, subject to the license agreement commonly known as the âMIT Licenseâ >>
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 <kilon.alios@gmail.com> 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 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:47 AM, webwarrior <reg@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.
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.
OK, no problem, just wanted to state the facts.
On 08 Dec 2015, at 13:36, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com> 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 <sven@stfx.eu> 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 âSupplierâs Codeâ) for the open source software known as âPharoâ (the âSoftwareâ), and that Supplier retains all rights in and to Supplierâs 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 Supplierâs 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 Supplierâs Code therein, to end users, subject to the license agreement commonly known as the âMIT Licenseâ >>
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 <kilon.alios@gmail.com> 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 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:47 AM, webwarrior <reg@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.
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.
so, first of all, I find the way you communicate your arguments a bit⦠well, not very polite. second, even Benâs 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 wouldnât be able to operate here without that: French law does not recognise digital signatures, checkbox or anything that comes from the âvirtual worldâ (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 retroactivelyâ¦). five, nobody forces you to do anything. Iâm 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 <reg@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...> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive <http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html> at Nabble.com.
"What you lose is the right to take out your code (and to change the licensing of it retroactivelyâ¦)." 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 UK and US jurisdictions - I have no knowledge of the case mutability of French law). The author *can* request that, and the publishers can accede to that request, if they choose. 2) The author cannot demand to have the terms of licence changed for code which has been accepted into the codebase. The author *can* request that, and the publishers can accede to that request, if they choose. 3) The author wrote the code, and provided a copy of it to the publisher. Unless s/he explicitly provided sole use to the publisher, he can provide that same code to any other group or publisher as s/he sees fit, under any license terms (or none) s/he chooses. Providing a copy of the code under a different licence is functionally equivalent to some interpretations of the quoted sentence. On 8 December 2015 at 10:42, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
so, first of all, I find the way you communicate your arguments a bit⦠well, not very polite. second, even Benâs 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 wouldnât be able to operate here without that: French law does not recognise digital signatures, checkbox or anything that comes from the âvirtual worldâ (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 retroactivelyâ¦). five, nobody forces you to do anything. Iâm 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 notâ¦
cheers! Esteban
On 08 Dec 2015, at 00:47, webwarrior <reg@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? Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
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 to us that we're not adequately meeting your needs to contribute anonymously, and that the rules we apply might not give us the guarantees we want. I'm sad that the way this discussion is formulated is not very helpful. My needs for harmony and cooperation are not adequately met. You pose a number of interesting questions and theses, challenging the way we work. The rules we apply have grown out of our experiences, both good and bad. I am sure they can be improved. We have a limited amount of time to work on Pharo, and mostly prefer dealing with code issues rather than legal ones. On an individual basis, I'm sure there are situations where the rules should not apply. Send a message to the board and explain to them in private. Other guarantees are possible, find a solution that works for all. Please be aware that we will not be able to meet every need, and that the balancing of needs the community chooses might not fit yours. If you want the rules to be actually changed, make it easy for us to do so. Take a good look at the deeper needs behind those rules and provide a proposal that meets them, in the right balance as you see it with yours. Please note that that includes making it easy for INRIA lawyers. If you want to, I'm willing to help you formulate your needs and concerns in a way that is less threatening and more likely to be effective. Just let me know. Stephan Eggermont
"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 party jurisdictions. Perhaops Pharo ought to do it's work under a legal system that is more completely designed to handle issues of international commerce? Or perhaps it should be a all-French affair. On 7 December 2015 at 20:26, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:
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.
Lamenting partially anonymous from the outside is neither useful nor polite. Working as a real member/part of the community on the other side can help us all to move forward step by step with a better open source project.
If you or any other is really interested in moving with us the registration or signature for sure will not be the show stopper.
Either we skip this stupid formality and continue working on the code, or I'm out of this.
As Stef explained this was not done to bug people or keep them away. We know that it might be cumbersome at first sight - but hey, many people mastered this easily. I guess we even have people who do not drink beer but wine instead :)
You can decide on your own how to proceed. Turn away or return. I guess there is only one big hurdle and this one is on your side ;)
As you see friendly people continue to invest their time answering your mails although you as the author not even have the time (or will) to reveal your name. IMHO if someone wants to participate in an open source project he has to be "open" on its own side first.
It's up to you...
Thanks T.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:44 AM, EuanM <euanmee@gmail.com> 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.
UK law is has a long tradition of sorting out legal issues between two-third party jurisdictions.
Perhaps Pharo ought to do it's work under a legal system that is more completely designed to handle issues of international commerce?
Knowing that INRIA as a French organisation provided substantial support to kickstart Pharo, without which Pharo may not have happened, I fully understand why Pharo's is governed by French laws. The funder gets to make to rules. The situation may be different once the Pharo Consortium builds a substantial enough income stream to be self governing - but you would gave to be pretty confident to leave the backup of the family nest.
Or perhaps it should be a all-French affair.
Non sequitur? cheers -ben
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 trust moment... On 12/07/2015 02:10 PM, stepharo wrote:
PS: I would be forcing everybody to use PGP for email and code, if you ask me.
Speaking of that, if you look in the Cryptography repository, you will find SMIME & OpenPGP packages... ;-) cheers, Robert
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 fork->commit->create pull request. In Pharo, it's already more complicated: you have to register yourself in SmalltalkHub, in fogbugz, in mailing lists. Slices system is also not very intuitive. Then CI system spits out some completely unrelated errors.
But OK, I understand that Pharo is unlike
Not every project lives in GitHub. For Ruby, Mozilla, Chromium, Python, PHP, ... you have to register to their bug tracker. After all, these projects predate both GitHub AND git.
Then people began asking me of my real name - which is already wierd - why would they need it?
The Pharo community is quite small and many people know each other personally (have met on Pharo Days, ESUG, are coworkers, ...). So working with someone who goes well out of his way to remain anonymous may be uncomfortable for some. Not to mention that such behavior may seem strange for OSS, but that's your call.
And then someone suggested that I must sign license agreement (which is also wierd - MIT license doesn't demand anything like that).
The MIT may not demand something like that, however signing License Agreement is also not completely unheard of, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement#Users This includes names like Python, Apache, jQuery, Django, ... not exactly small fishes.
I looked at that agreeement. It requires you to provide name, address (???), sgin it and send it via snail mail (WTF???).
See above. Also note that copyright in many countries recognized pseudonyms as valid authors. (I am not familiar with French law, but I will assume it is harmonized across EU) Of course in case of a dispute you would need to be able to prove that you are the pseudonym (otherwise you yourself would loose the rights). So considering your position (revealing your real name would undermine all the work you've put into protecting it), going with a pseudonym if you are indeed willing to contribute may be the best course of action.
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/License-agreement-are-you-kidding-me-tp4865853.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-- Peter
"The Pharo community is quite small" Yes, and that is a major issue. Both for feature-completeness in a timely fashion, and also for commercial uptake of use of Pharo. Saying that it's small, so it's okay to make it difficult for people to join is... self-fulfilling. On 8 December 2015 at 07:35, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
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 fork->commit->create pull request. In Pharo, it's already more complicated: you have to register yourself in SmalltalkHub, in fogbugz, in mailing lists. Slices system is also not very intuitive. Then CI system spits out some completely unrelated errors.
But OK, I understand that Pharo is unlike
Not every project lives in GitHub. For Ruby, Mozilla, Chromium, Python, PHP, ... you have to register to their bug tracker. After all, these projects predate both GitHub AND git.
Then people began asking me of my real name - which is already wierd - why would they need it?
The Pharo community is quite small and many people know each other personally (have met on Pharo Days, ESUG, are coworkers, ...). So working with someone who goes well out of his way to remain anonymous may be uncomfortable for some. Not to mention that such behavior may seem strange for OSS, but that's your call.
And then someone suggested that I must sign license agreement (which is also wierd - MIT license doesn't demand anything like that).
The MIT may not demand something like that, however signing License Agreement is also not completely unheard of, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement#Users
This includes names like Python, Apache, jQuery, Django, ... not exactly small fishes.
I looked at that agreeement. It requires you to provide name, address (???), sgin it and send it via snail mail (WTF???).
See above. Also note that copyright in many countries recognized pseudonyms as valid authors. (I am not familiar with French law, but I will assume it is harmonized across EU) Of course in case of a dispute you would need to be able to prove that you are the pseudonym (otherwise you yourself would loose the rights).
So considering your position (revealing your real name would undermine all the work you've put into protecting it), going with a pseudonym if you are indeed willing to contribute may be the best course of action.
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/License-agreement-are-you-kidding-me-tp4865853.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-- Peter
participants (15)
-
Ben Coman -
Dimitris Chloupis -
Esteban Lorenzano -
EuanM -
Hernán Morales Durand -
Peter Uhnak -
phil＠highoctane.be -
philippe.back＠highoctane.be -
Robert Withers -
Stephan Eggermont -
stepharo -
Sven Van Caekenberghe -
Torsten Bergmann -
Tudor Girba -
webwarrior