Marv, don't be a patronising idiot. I completely understand how an NDA works and why it's needed for people who work with the code. However, people in the past have been asked to sign the NDA for positions that aren't part of PA Team nor have access to the code.
I was one of those people asked to do so. I saw no reason to sign something that curtailed my speech across all of the forums on any issue to do with Planetarion (not just regarding PAN development). The NDA does not need to be as wide-ranging as it is for people in non-PA Team/coding positions, and in fact I suggested to Appocomaster at the time a number of amendments that would make me willing to sign it. Suffice it to say that Jolt were not willing to budge.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marv
Plus if the only reason you didn't sign the NDA was because you want to reserve the right to be rude in public towards those doing the work then you don't deserve to be on on such a program / project anyway to be quite frank.
|
Way to go Marv in manipulating what I said. I had a lengthy conversation via pm with Appoco where I carefully outlined why I wasn't happy with it. Jolt claim that it's just there to stop people using inside information as leverage against them, yet that's not what it says at all - and in fact, Section 1.1 (confidential information) will do that just fine.
To quote from me at the time:
Quote:
I'll attempt to illustrate why I am opposed to Section 2.1:
Let's say that I was unhappy with a change made in the current round of Planetarion, e.g. the recent rule change made with respect to support planets. Under Section 2.1, I would be unable to criticise PA-Team (Planetarion) nor Jolt if they came to defend the actions of PA-Team. I find that unacceptable.
I am willing to come up with an alternative Section 2.1 that isn't as wide-ranging. But I will not sign the Waiver as it is.
|
(what was section 2.1 then is now section 2.4)
I would add to this post the responses of Appocomaster and biffy, but I'd rather have their permission to do so first.