On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 07:46:29AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
> > The best analysis of this situation I have read so far is the one in
> > Noodles' blog:
>
> > https://www.earth.li/~noodles/blog/2017/03/github-tos-change.html
>
> IMHO that a
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> The best analysis of this situation I have read so far is the one in
> Noodles' blog:
> https://www.earth.li/~noodles/blog/2017/03/github-tos-change.html
IMHO that analysis misses one point. Namely, in section D.4 "License
Grant to Us" the Githu
Ben Finney dijo [Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:16:55AM +1100]:
> "kmarsc...@ellemsoftware.com kmarsc...@ellemsoftware.com"
> writes:
>
> > I see it as overhyped and exaggerated.
>
> What is “it”? Whose position are you characterising as overhype and
> exaggeration?
>
> > I'm sure the FSF is simply tr
"kmarsc...@ellemsoftware.com kmarsc...@ellemsoftware.com"
writes:
> I see it as overhyped and exaggerated.
What is “it”? Whose position are you characterising as overhype and
exaggeration?
> I'm sure the FSF is simply trying to bully github into promoting
> copyleft in their TOS (rather than no
> The current TOS state clearly that one must own or have permission of
> any content
I see it as overhyped and exaggerated. Github has a bad history with their
legal/PR teams. Remember when they adopted the 'feminism code of conduct'?
Promoting 'reverse racism' allowed the harassment of anyone wh
5 matches
Mail list logo