I disagree. He explicitly consented to everybody doing whatever they want with the software.
I just don't think it's fair to allow people to do one thing and then make them feel bad about it once they do it.
---
Let me clarify a couple of things here so I don't have to write short replies to all of you.
Let's start with the 3-clause-BSD license. It states that you aren't allowed to use the names of the contributors to endorse derived works. They don't do any of that so this is not an issue.
Somebody brought up trademarks. If there's a trademark issue the legal situation should be clear and this issue should resolve itself in no time. Nobody likes lawsuits. I don't see how they violate any trademarks though.
Somebody else brought up handles. This has always been an issue. It seems to boil down to if you like a project, it's okay for them to use somebody else's handle, if you don't, it's unacceptable. I don't think it's a good idea to build a moral argument on top of that. I'm pretty sure I'm guilty of this myself.
The money/tax thing is very interesting. I really wouldn't know, but I don't think you can collect money on someone else's behalf. As in, it only becomes a tax issue/your money once you actually accept the money.
If you're one of the people who think "GitHub should just shut these scumbags down" we might as well start shutting down political parties, newspapers and TV station we don't like. I don't want to live in a world like that.
What upsets me the most is the fact that it becomes harder and harder to have a discussion about topics like this one. What's the point in having a discussion platform if everybody is expected to agree anyway? And even worse, if you don't immediately state that you don't support someone/something you're guilty by association somehow.
Your focus on the software and license (which continues in your clarification) is more a demonstration that you haven't understood the situation than it is disagreement with anything being discussed. The complaint is Please remove my repositories from the website and do not add a way to add them again. I do not value third party websites gameifying my projects, but where it says "repositories", it is not talking about copies of the software, it is talking about listings on tip4commit.com that look(ed!) like they were collecting donations for mitsuhiko/*.
Maybe my other replies will make more sense in that light.
(the (ed!) is because they at least have stuck up a disclaimer saying the projects don't like the funding)
The reason I felt the need to explain the legal situation is that some people seem to think there's an objective right/wrong here and that's just not true.
Furthermore, I believe the reaction to this issue is way over the top. The tip4commit people seem very well intentioned in that they created a website for people to donate to open source projects. They might be stubborn and adding the disclaimer might have taken a couple of days to long, but I don't see how any of this justifies so much hate.
Your explanation of the legal situation comes out of nowhere. It's not related to why people find the website so distasteful (I think I've tried to explain that enough already). I'm wondering if you are being deliberately obtuse about this.
The best thing tip4commit could do to demonstrate their very well intention would be to quickly listen to anybody who asks them to remove the offer to collect donations (that is, simply listen to the thunderous frustration rather than wondering where all the hate is coming from while trying to explain how they are just doing this nice thing).
The insight that they were not well intentioned for the projects they supposedly wanted to help. This was a project which explicitly asked them to fix a problem. Not any problem, it was a very serious one. They refused.
Armin tends to BSD-license his work. And the BSD license includes a provision which forbids use of contributor names for endorsement/promotion without permission.
So, no, "consent" is not what Armin did. In fact, he did the opposite of that.
> The names of the contributors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
As far as I can tell (!) there are no products derived from the software. Neither do they mention the names of the contributors. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The consent isn't about the software, it's about the name/handle.
Whatever the legal specifics might be, I think you'll find that an awful lot of people think it is obnoxious to collect money (or so) on behalf of someone else without having them agree to it first.
You say I'm pretty sure you can't collect money on other people's behalf though.
What is it you think tip4commit is doing that is being objected to if not collecting money for someone else? Bitcoin are close enough to money for the purposes of what I was saying.
I think you're right. In spite of the many good points that people are debating with this issue, there's clearly a witch-hunt dynamic going on here. I'm seeing a lot of comments with perfectly valid opinions getting down-voted just because people don't agree with them. I think people just need to sit this one out and let the actual stake holders work it out.
