Stephen M. Webb:
> I think you will find that there is no conflict between any vaguely
> defined "social contract" and the requirements for acceptable code
> submission to a software project.
That social contract is <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt>.
David Alan Gilbert:
> I don't think any reading of Alberto's mail is objecting to code review.
Exactly.
Stephen M. Webb:
> If you truly believe that the original works of an author or authors
> belong not to them individually but to some larger collective, you
> would probably be more effective talking to legislators to get the
> copyright and patent laws in your local jurisdiction struck down, and
> best of luck with that. Mean time we will continue asking the
> authors of contributions to agree to share the specific rights in
> their work if they want it accepted into a Canonical-led project.
> That's the best way to guarantee fairness for everyone.
Putting the agreement under the United Kingdom law wasn't my objection,
but to take nearly unlimited power over the code.
Stephen M. Webb:
> If you could enumerate the abuses engendered by asking for a grant of
> license I'd be happy to address them individually.
As I said, this is like telling a autocracy is good because their
drivers have never done something bad.
It's something that elicits distrust itself, and usually finishes with
people working less and less for the project; even when they are paid
for it.
