Rights they need to have if they want to host your code. You asked in another comment why they needed certain rights, and now I see you commenting here as if you know what you are talking about.
You are admit you are ignorant of the needs, but you go around commenting as if you have a clue.
Github needs the same rights as bitbucket to do what it does.
Sir, your ad hominem argument is a fallacy that proves nothing, and impresses no one.
If you want to give me an actual reason, rather than making your argument about my person, feel free. You have only asserted that they need the rights, but you fail to say why. Please feel free to chime in with facts and reasoning at some point, I am interested in what you have to say.
You are admit you are ignorant of the needs, but you go around commenting as if you have a clue.
You'll notice I said "seems". That's an English word with connotations of uncertainty and doubt, do try to look it up in a dictionary some time.
Have you read this reply to your previous post yet? I think that's what was being referred to, and it clearly answers the issue bought up there and again here.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Maybe they want to store it in a compressed form” is not a clear answer, and subsequent unfair attack at the poster for me personally discredits the whole comment anyway. Having been a long-time Bitbucket user and welcoming their latest UI improvements, I begin wondering about these terms, too.
> You'll notice I said "seems". That's an English word with connotations of uncertainty and doubt, do try to look it up in a dictionary some time.
You also said: "Rights they shouldn't have." without any qualification.
And you'll note that "seems" has multiple definitions, as well as multiple meanings when placed in context.
Regardless, even if we take "seem" at face value, it's not the issue. The issue is that they are asking for those rights, but you don't understand why they are asking for those rights. And your conclusion is that they shouldn't be asking for those rights. That's the problem. Your use of the word "seems" is meaningless. It doesn't matter.
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.
You are admit you are ignorant of the needs, but you go around commenting as if you have a clue.
Github needs the same rights as bitbucket to do what it does.