https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5888471
Have you read this reply to your previous post yet? I think that's what was being referred to, and it clearly answers the issue bought up there and again here.
Have you read this reply to your previous post yet? I think that's what was being referred to, and it clearly answers the issue bought up there and again here.
Sure, probably won't happen, but what if they get taken over by another company. How do I know they won't do that?
He then mentions distribution in order to distribute to others specifically if you elect to do so. But if I choose not to, the wording currently allows them to distribute no matter what my wishes are.
Again, not something they are likely to do. But with legal documents, surely it's a good idea not to give overarching rights that you never intended in the legal document?
Seriously though, I said that my concern is that the terms seem overly broad. I gave some specific examples. Are you saying they are invalid? What is twisty about expressing my genuine concerns?
Frankly, if you believe the terms aren't overly broad, more power to you. I'm not sure I like the terms, luckily for me IMO I chose GitHub for unrelated reasons. Seems to me their license is a better fit for my comfort level.
Anyways, it's the type of commentary that isn't welcome here.
The commenter didn't feel any need to address this actual point, not sure how it contributed to the discussion in any way. I was quite annoyed I got downvoted, because I am genuinely interested in seeing an actual response to this particular concern. Also, it felt like bullying and groupthink.
Good day to you all :-)
However long people have been on here, it's always good to be reminded that even if we know the rules, we sometimes break them.
Just because someone else is breaking the rules shouldn't mean we let ourselves do the same.