This is gross to read because it's really about consent.
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.
I'm sad now. Please continue.
So, no, "consent" is not what Armin did. In fact, he did the opposite of that.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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).
Yeah, it seems after their response to the issue their intentions became a bit more clear, and they are as good you claim.
Care to share any new insights you've gained?