|
Except that's not what I said at all. I said that I am concerned the terms seem overly broad. You haven't addressed this issue in any of your responses. Like I say, if you are fine with sweeping rights to your material in legally binding contracts, more power to you I guess. I'm a little uncomfortable with them, I'm not a lawyer, though. Indeed, I don't know why they need those rights, neither do you. They are so broad, they could allow for a lot of undesirable things. I saw a lot of responses from others along the lines of "perhaps they need those rights for x and y", but actually nobody clearly knows the limits of the rights Atlassian grant themselves. If they chose to rewrite your source code or your history (hypothetical here...) then they could do that with legal impunity. Of course, it would be a PR disaster, and unlikely to happen, but I don't see how the points I raise aren't valid in any way. If you can tell me, that's fine. If you don't have a counter argument, then I'm not going to engage any more. I don't feel like listening to your assumptions against my character - I don't know who you are, you don't know who I am, you don't know my motivations, and I don't know yours. I'm not sure I even really care, to be somewhat blunt. Incidentally, I probably could have made myself more clear, what I was saying was that I felt that perhaps they were overreaching to grant themselves rights they probably never intended to have, but through their agreement they are so granted. There was probably no need for you to use insulting language though. But if that's the way you want to conduct yourself, I suppose that's your prerogative. |