As someone who grew up in a society with rampant corruption (India), Fountainhead (the destruction of buildings at the end of the novel) and Atlas Shrugged (motivated me into leaving India to self-implode while I traveled to US to have a better life) quite a impression on my teenage years. It was only later when I thought about these books more that I realized how crazy they are.
In the meantime, India didn't self-implode, at least not yet.
Can you create a group and set a sticky bit for ACLs for your root for the filesystem with read permissions for that group? That way all files created under the filesystem root will have read permissions for that user, but you cannot modify anything.
People who are these fans don't really use git. They use github subset of git. Hence, all these problems. In my experience, people who actually use git instead of github don't have these issues.
I must admit that when I first learnt git, I thought that the only way to correctly use git was to know the object model of git. I thought this was important because git is at the end a data manager and I then though that one should know the data model you are manipulating in order to manipulate it in correct way. In that respect, I always found git commands mostly intuitive.
Much later in my career I learnt that people were using git without even knowing anything about what a Merkle tree is and I must say I was extremely surprised. I'm not saying its good or bad, just describing my younger days.
The contributor owns the copyright. In Germany for example, there's no transfer of copyright, only non-exclusive license to use. The Developer Certificate of Origin can be used to be make it legal.
I used to think that copyright is always assigned to the creator, like in Germany, and it appears that I was wrong: according to Wikipedia, at least English law actually defaults (no contract clause needed!) to assigning your copyright to your employer if the contribution was done as part of work for hire. This was a surprise to me but it explained why some OSS projects, like ones by Adobe, require a CLA: many people use their libraries at work, and if someone like that contributes a fix Adobe’s lawyers justifiedly would not want part of their code to be owned by another company.
It is a sad side-effect that assigning away your rights with a CLA to some company also enables some shady behavior[0], but it seems that the possible intent to “to place a rug under the project, so that they can pull at the first sign of a bad quarter” co-exists with a more reasonable desire not to have parts of the codebase that you started and mostly maintain at your own cost owned by a potentially hostile entity.
That said, it’s sad that DCOs are not used instead[1]. IIUC, DCO basically makes it clear that the contributor is the one owning the copyright, eliminating the above issue without enabling the rug-pulling.
> I used to think that copyright is always assigned to the creator, like in Germany, and it appears that I was wrong: according to Wikipedia, at least English law actually defaults (no contract clause needed!) to assigning your copyright to your employer if the contribution was done as part of work for hire
It‘s basically the same in Germany. Urheberrecht is not the same as copyright, but comprises personal rights and exploitation rights. 99% of questions about Urheberrecht in commercial settings are about exploitation rights, so ~ about copyright in an American sense.
Personal rights (mostly the right to be named) stay with the author and can never be transferred, exploitation rights default to the employer in employment situations (and are usually explicitly transferred in work contracts, to be safe).
Copyright is not the same as licensing. There is a big difference between granting your employer a license to your work (or OSS contribution), vs. making them the copyright holder (meaning they actually created the work, and you are entirely out of the picture for all intents and purposes). I’d like a lawyer to chime in regarding this English law.
> This was a surprise to me but it explained why some OSS projects, like ones by Adobe, require a CLA: many people use their libraries at work, and if someone like that contributes a fix Adobe’s lawyers justifiedly would not want part of their code to be owned by another company.
A CLA does not affect who owns the code. It only grants the OSS project the right to use the code.
Generally speaking, a CLA will be a non-exclusive license, meaning you can give the OSS project the right to use your code while you also retain the ability to license that code to others as well (as well as continue to use it in your own projects)
The DCO does let someone who doesn't own a piece of code to contribute it to a project, they just have to be certain that it is licensed under the license it says it is licensed under.
It's a very common way to write in Indian English. What is probably happening here is that ChatGPT is trained in text over the internet and it is possible that there's lot more Indian English text on internet than others, and hence this effect.
In the meantime, India didn't self-implode, at least not yet.