[chris_wot]

I read it after I posted the comment. Like I mention above, I was uncertain about the terms. It seemed to me that the terms are overly broad. For instance, he says "maybe they want to compress the data". Well, then if that's the case, write that. But currently it gives them the rights to modify source code. What happens if there is an implementation of patented code they don't like in a private repo? The current terms allow them to modify the data to remove that code.

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?

[crusso]

At some point, you should realize that conceding an argument makes you look a lot more mature and reasonable than continuing to twist and wiggle endlessly to make sure that people see that you're correct.

[chris_wot]

Sure showed me, huh?

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.

[chris_wot]

Oh bravo. Downvoted me instead of engaging.

[jasonlotito]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Down voting someone that replied to you or that you replied to doesn't count. That being said, this comment of yours right here is the exact type of comment that should get down voted. It's meaningless and pointless. It's childish, and offers nothing to the conversation. I cannot down vote it precisely because I'm replying.

Anyways, it's the type of commentary that isn't welcome here.

[chris_wot]

I've been on this site as long as you have, Jason. I know the rules, so will bow out gracefully at this point except to say that I was responding to the valueless comment "you should quit while you are ahead", which assumed I was trying to "win" an argument when all I have been doing is stating my concern that the agreement terms seem overly broad.

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 :-)

[jasonlotito]

I home in on people talking about "down votes" and complaining about receiving them. It's a pet-peeve of mine here. I've occasionally done it as well. I deserve to get down voted for it.

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.

[xtracto]

Seems Reddit is leaking...