I’m pretty sure it means exactly what it says, but you lot are all misreading it.
I interpret it as “all rights, except the right to commit, are reserved” (which doesn’t mean you surrender the right to commit, but rather that it’s the only right you aren’t depriving everyone else of)
And I’m pretty sure that the name “hot potato license” and the comment above the license are very strong indicators for this not being the case. The license is meant to mimic a game of hot potato where you get the code for a short moment (one commit) and have to throw it to someone else. Sure, the analogy doesn’t quite work because you can’t decide who has to make the next commit but it would make even less sense if you were able to keep control over the code and add more and more commits. That would defeat the whole point of naming it “hot potato license”.
I’m pretty sure it means exactly what it says, but you lot are all misreading it.
I interpret it as “all rights, except the right to commit, are reserved” (which doesn’t mean you surrender the right to commit, but rather that it’s the only right you aren’t depriving everyone else of)
And I’m pretty sure that the name “hot potato license” and the comment above the license are very strong indicators for this not being the case. The license is meant to mimic a game of hot potato where you get the code for a short moment (one commit) and have to throw it to someone else. Sure, the analogy doesn’t quite work because you can’t decide who has to make the next commit but it would make even less sense if you were able to keep control over the code and add more and more commits. That would defeat the whole point of naming it “hot potato license”.
No it wouldn’t. Whoever touched it last is responsible for it, that’s entirely consistent with the metaphore