I'm sorry, it really was a question and not intended to shut down a conversation, if the conversation was useful. I just didn't (and still don't) understand what this has to do with git hosting or scheme. My 2c, if it's relevant: If i want other people to use my code, I release it with a permissive licence. If i don't, i don't release it, because there's no way to control it sanely once it's left my domain, and i don't need ulcers worrying about it. I don't use any 3rd party hosting because i don't trust any corporation to keep any personal details safe nor to not use anything "private" within their domain. If people are that stressed about git licencing, I've already offered to run a git vm for use by the scheme community. Universal morality is an entirely separate issue and I can trivially falsify every assertion made so far in the conversation. :) -elf On 13/06/2020 22:24, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:27 AM elf <xxxxxx@ephemeral.net > <mailto:xxxxxx@ephemeral.net>> wrote: > > My apologies, but what does any of this discussion have to do with > scheme? > > People have different views on licensing. We know this. What does > all this philosophy/sophistry have to do with anything? > > > While I found the discussion fascinating, I agree that it has moved > beyond the bounds of Scheme and SRFIs in particular. I'll step in as > editor and ask that we keep the discussion focussed. > > If there's a call for it, I'll create an off-topic mailing list that our > members can use to talk about such things. I'll make sure that is not > included in srfi-auto-subscribe. > > Thanks to everyone.
