Fix for #206

[Daniel-Abrecht]

To fix #206, I've added an additional fallback for pty.kill using TIOCGPGRP, introduced the optional sendToProcessGroup parameter to the kill function, and removed the try catch that swallows all errors. I've removed the try catch because I think it is better to know if an error occurs and why than to have it silently discarded.

[msftclas]

Thank you for your submission, we really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.

❌ Daniel-Abrecht sign now
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[Tyriar]

@Daniel-Abrecht could you sign the CLA? The repo has moved to the Microsoft org since your last PR and this is a requirement now.

[Daniel-Abrecht]

I'm sorry, but I don't grant special exclusive licenses or permissions to third parties for open source code or changes thereof.

This code and the modified version including the changes I've made are already licensed under the MIT license which is included in this project and thus granted to everyone obtaining the code. By publishing the changes under these terms, I've already implicitly declared that I'm allowed to do so. Additionally, the GitHub terms of service make this explicit: https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#6-contributions-under-repository-license

I'm opposed to the usage of CLAs, because to me it appears counter to the free software spirit. I want to benefit everyone with my work, not just the ones mentioned in a CLA. I also think the practice may harm free software, since it's not common practice to use them, but using them now could normalize them and their usage for open source software to a point where they could become required for everyone, and if this happens, this would pose a risk for all projects that didn't use them before, would largely increase the efforts required to safely share code for individuals and would shift who controls the open source world itself.

I understand that Microsoft has it's policies reading such matters, but so do I.

PS: I wouldn't be opposed to DCOs (Developer Certificate of Origin) though.

[Tyriar]

@Daniel-Abrecht sorry about the delay in response, I had a chat with legal about this.

I'm opposed to the usage of CLAs, because to me it appears counter to the free software spirit. I want to benefit everyone with my work, not just the ones mentioned in a CLA. I also think the practice may harm free software, since it's not common practice to use them, but using them now could normalize them and their usage for open source software to a point where they could become required for everyone, and if this happens, this would pose a risk for all projects that didn't use them before, would largely increase the efforts required to safely share code for individuals and would shift who controls the open source world itself.

Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer.

As I understand it, the CLA that this project uses protects Microsoft and the users of this library from patents-related legal action. All the CLA is saying beyond the MIT license is that you have the rights to the code you're submitting and if you own patent(s) on it you grant a license to this project and users of it. It is these CLAs that big companies use that make it possible for them to accept PRs in the first place.

But anyway, I respect your decision. I'm planning on reverting your previous PR as I don't have time to fix the bug it introduced (and it was never a problem for me anyway). Future contributions are always welcome but we need the CLA signed, it's MS policy.

[Daniel-Abrecht]

As I understand it, the CLA that this project uses protects Microsoft and the users of this library from patents-related legal action.

I'm no lawyer either. But since the CLA is between Microsoft and the people who signed it, I doubt that it would help anyone who decides to fork the project to take it in a different direction. A DCO, on the other hand, isn't an agreement between the contributor and anyone else, but more like a guarantee to everyone who may ever use the project, and thus can be relied on by everyone equally. And regarding software patents, I'm from Switzerland, as far as I know patents which only cover software aren't possible in Switzerland and aren't possible in the EU either, so that's mostly an US issue.

Anyway, things are how they are, I guess. Thanks for your patience and have a nice day.