Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by thomastjeffery 637 days ago
You can't blame this one on English.

Before the ambiguity of language can get in the way, there has to be a coherent idea that you want to express in the first place.

This license explicitly contradicts itself. It says you are encouraged to contribute changes to the source, and you may not share changes to the source with anyone ever.
1 comments
hunter2_ 637 days ago
It seems like the intent is to encourage giving changes to exclusively the maintainer, and that forking in this context refers to distribution beyond a private communication between the change proposer and the maintainer.
link
TeMPOraL 636 days ago
Which, this being a git repo, makes perfect sense, as despite the impression GitHub gave to a whole generation of developers, Git was designed with a different contribution workflow in mind: one of sending patches by e-mail. Cloning the repo locally, making changes, formatting a patch, and sending it to the maintainer, seems to be perfectly withing bounds of both intent and text of the license.
link