Richard Stallman Says Linux Code Contributions Can't Be Rescinded (itwire.com) 588
An anonymous reader quotes iTWire:
Linux developers who contribute code to the kernel cannot rescind those contributions, according to the software programmer who devised the GNU General Public Licence version 2.0, the licence under which the kernel is released. Richard Stallman, the head of the Free Software Foundation and founder of the GNU Project, told iTWire in response to queries that contributors to a GPLv2-covered program could not ask for their code to be removed. "That's because they are bound by the GPLv2 themselves. I checked this with a lawyer," said Stallman, who started the free software movement in 1984.
There have been claims made by many people, including journalists, that if any kernel developers are penalised under the new code of conduct for the kernel project -- which was put in place when Linux creator Linus Torvalds decided to take a break to fix his behavioural issues -- then they would ask for their code to be removed from the kernel... Stallman asked: "But what if they could? What would they achieve by doing so? They would cause harm to the whole free software community. The anonymous person who suggests that Linux contributors do this is urging them to [use a] set of nuclear weapons in pique over an internal matter of the development team for Linux. What a shame that would be."
Slashdot reader dmoberhaus shared an article from Motherboard with more perspetives from Eric S. Raymond and LWN.net founder Jonathan Corbet, which also traces the origins of the suggestion. "[A]n anonymous user going by the handle 'unconditionedwitness' called for developers who end up getting banned through the Code of Conduct in the future to rescind their contributions to the Linux kernel 'in a bloc' to produce the greatest effect.
"It is worth noting that the email address for unconditionedwitness pointed to redchan.it, a now defunct message board on 8chan that mostly hosted misogynistic memes, many of which were associated with gamergate."
There have been claims made by many people, including journalists, that if any kernel developers are penalised under the new code of conduct for the kernel project -- which was put in place when Linux creator Linus Torvalds decided to take a break to fix his behavioural issues -- then they would ask for their code to be removed from the kernel... Stallman asked: "But what if they could? What would they achieve by doing so? They would cause harm to the whole free software community. The anonymous person who suggests that Linux contributors do this is urging them to [use a] set of nuclear weapons in pique over an internal matter of the development team for Linux. What a shame that would be."
Slashdot reader dmoberhaus shared an article from Motherboard with more perspetives from Eric S. Raymond and LWN.net founder Jonathan Corbet, which also traces the origins of the suggestion. "[A]n anonymous user going by the handle 'unconditionedwitness' called for developers who end up getting banned through the Code of Conduct in the future to rescind their contributions to the Linux kernel 'in a bloc' to produce the greatest effect.
"It is worth noting that the email address for unconditionedwitness pointed to redchan.it, a now defunct message board on 8chan that mostly hosted misogynistic memes, many of which were associated with gamergate."
Never had the rights (Score:3)
Then there's the case where they never had the rights to the code in the first place, and could not legally contribute it. I guess that kind of thing could be rescinded.
Re:Never had the rights (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Please stop trying to make analogies between physical property, and information.
You cannot "take something back" if you never lost it in the first place.
Re:Never had the rights (Score:5, Insightful)
400 years of legal history, since the first copyright act in 1710, disagree with you. At a minimum, courts can and will force you to cease sharing that intellectual property.
Re: Never had the rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlikely. The argument that the GPL2's no-recission clause lacks the word "recission" is laughably weak. The incels will be laughed out of court, and no one will miss them when they are gone.
And there is a way for them to escape this. All they have to do is grow up. But they won't, not because they can't, but because they just don't want to. That's all it is. And that is why they are being replaced.
Re: Never had the rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Replaced with what? Talentless virtue signalers and diversity hires? Enough is enough. Nobody has a natural right to force themselves and their views on any community without expecting blowback for it. No outsider has a natural right to 'replace' anybody either.
Here's the lovely thing about all this: no, they won't be laughed out of court. It's an interesting argument either way, and one must accept that Stallman is an open source fanatic and isn't going to willingly put forth a position that could harm that movement. I like the guy, but he is not objective here.
The best part though is that computers don't give a rat's ass about your feelings. The talentless gender fluid attention whores who started all this are utterly incapable of maintaining a world class operating system, and they're going to learn that when they try. Also, these people you seem to think have no right to exist unless they choose to conform to your expectations are going to go get together elsewhere and produce something superior and they are going to make sure that the likes of you can never get anywhere near it.
Also, had it occurred to anyone that pissing off a bunch of people who by your own admission are superior to you in technology (or ending meritocracy wouldn't be a stated goal of all this) is probably a really bad idea? The best thing that could come of that is they will rip the code the diversity contributors submit to absolute shreds. Again, neither technology nor most thinking people give a damn about your feelings.
Re: Never had the rights (Score:5, Insightful)
The only ones signalling are the nutters who object to standards, who believe they can decide who can contribute, who think that gender matters more than the code.
Their signals are not POSIX compliant. I see no value in them. If they cannot survive on quality, they don't offer anything of value.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You're hating on women
nope
unironically calling people cucks
nope
using terms like "alpha" and "beta"
Nope. Unless we're talking software releases, but we're not.
crying about other people's code
nope
shrieking in rage at the idea that ostracism might ever be the correct course of action to take against someone
nope
denying any possibility of the idea that you might be the one with the problem.
I'm not the insane cunt calling people incels.
You're just throwing around pretty much every other identifying marker known to humanity
Nah. Just 'cunt'. I didn't even use that until you demonstrated its accuracy in describing you.
When you look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and flock with the ducks
Given your libellous lies about me, I'm sure you can understand why I've had to use your own logic to very correctly call you a cunt.
Meanwhile you've failed utterly to find anybody on here that describes themselves as an incel; you just seem to like throwing the term around like a 10 year old t
Re: (Score:3)
And starting in 1731 or so, when the first copyrights started expiring , the courts eventually ruled that copyright does not exist in the common law and is a pure creation of the State, unlike real property whereby occupying it gave you rights, even without any statutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Never had the rights (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
An individual can revoke the copyright license. This is why the Free Software Foundation regularly urges contributors to its projects to sign over copyrights to the Free Software Foundation. The Free Software Foundation has been _very_ good about pulling copies of code that the authors have withdrawn licenses for. That includes the Libreboot software, which is still GPL but is no longer published through the GNU project.
Re: Never had the rights (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think an individual (or group) can actually pull the license for GPL software that is out in the wild. They can change the license for the software in their procession and release it under different terms but the original is still GPL.
So foo v1 is GPL and later the author releases foo v2 under the MINE license, v1 is still GPL and can be forked. The actual name may be protected under trademark law so the v2 of the GPL fork may have to be bar v2.
Re:Never had the rights (Score:4, Informative)
That kind of claim has occurred before. The largest scale of claims were those by SCO, which claimed that core code to Linux was copied from SysV UNIX, for which they owned the copyrights. There were enormous difficulties with their claimss, which were well analyzed at https://www.groklaw.net./ [www.groklaw.net] It turned out that they refused to detail which code was copied, samples that they claimed were copied were from BSD UNIX and copied with permission, and SCO had been contributing to the UNIX kernel themselves. It also turned out they didn't own SysV UNIX, that was still owned by Novell, and SCO had not been paying their licensing fees.
If SCO had copied in any of the SysV code, or if anyone else had, the Linux developers would have had to negotiate that with Novell, the owners of SysV UNIX. Since Novell was suing SCO for their fraudulent lawsuits against the Linux community, I think there would have been no licensing difficulty for modest contributions.
Stallman abandons ethics? (Score:3, Interesting)
What’s being discussed again? Kicking out and ostracizing someone and keeping their contributed code, against their wishes? You guys really think that's a moral or ethical thing to do?
If you don’t want someone included, you don't get to benefit from their contributions either. If you want to benefit from their contributions, then get off your high horse and exercise some tolerance.
The right to ostracize someone and keep and continue benefitting from their volunteered work is not something an
Um... yeah, that's a huge part of the point (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same thing. The point of the GPL is software freedom. Regardless of the circumstance the software remains free. That freedom _is_ his ethics. Go spend some time reading the many, many things he's written on this topic and you'll find him completely consistent in this regard.
So yeah, no take backs. Whatever the reason.
Re:Stallman abandons ethics? (Score:4, Interesting)
What’s being discussed again? Kicking out and ostracizing someone and keeping their contributed code, against their wishes? You guys really think that's a moral or ethical thing to do?
The GPL was explicitly designed in response to James Gosling rescinding his contributions against previous promises for financial gain, to avoid such crap behavior in future. Stallman had to rewrite major parts of Emacs because of Gosling's fuckheadery. So yes, the GPL has been designed in a manner where people cannot both build on existing code and withdraw their contributions after the fact. A main point of the GPL is to remove leverage for secondary contributors having second thoughts. That's something you accept when contributing to an existing project. That's what "contributing" means.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It shows only the poorest class of character
You want to condemn someone's character, exclude them, and keep and benefit from their volunteered contributions, against their wishes?
If you're too good to associate with a specific individual, then don't take their work, don't keep their work, don't use their work.
Don't talk to us about character when you're ostracizing people and using their work against their wishes, like some sort of corporate comic book villain.
Re: (Score:3)
An ethical person wouldn't defend the concept of extorting a society just so you can continue to drag shit down and ruin everything for everyone, but hey, here you are.
No one is extorting anyone. Just don't kick people out and you won't have to face the ethical question of using their generous gift of code against their wishes while you're treating them like yesterday's garbage.
How does not treating contributors like garbage "ruin everything for everyone "? Why are you so dead set on kicking out generous contributors?
Re: Stallman abandons ethics? (Score:3)
No one is extorting anyone.
Not successfully, since you overestimate your indispensability. But you're trying to.
Just don't kick people out and you won't have to face the ethical question of using their generous gift of code against their wishes while you're treating them like yesterday's garbage.
Just don't be garbage people and you won't get kicked out. If your "gift" were truly "generous" then you wouldn't be trying to attach strings to it.
How does not treating contributors like garbage "ruin everything for everyone "?
It doesn't. I never claimed it did. But your "contribution" is a strong net negative: you push so many people away that your code does not make up for it.
Why are you so dead set on kicking out generous contributors?
I'm not. You are not generous You more than squander the value of your contributions with your abuse of the community, and t
Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Rescind (Score:5, Interesting)
The fellow spreading this story that you can "rescind" code is more commonly known as MikeeUSA, a misogynist and general nutcase. In one email, he complains that because of people like me, the law doesn't allow him to marry very young girls. I mean single-digit young. He claims to be an attorney but nothing he has written makes me think he is. He was joined in this by some folks known from gamergate. They aren't legitimate kernel developers.
This is just obnoxious gamergate folks grabbing at publicity where they can get it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the new CoC is absolutely guaranteed to drive away people who believe their contributions are more important than their genitals
Why is that?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is that?
It allows witch hunting against contributors for wrong think, with an inner council that isn't held to it's own standards. Say the wrong thing, hold the wrong opinion, believe something that they don't and the happy little gang of thugs will come after you, smear you, dox, and go after your friends and family. 24hrs after it was put in place [archive.is] the person who is the core behind it already began the witch hunt. Other people are doing the same thing, using the CoC [reddit.com] to purge their ideological enemies.
Tell me some
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a kernel mailing list. Nobody wants to hear your personal opinions. Why would such things even need to be discussed?
Re: (Score:3)
This is a kernel mailing list. Nobody wants to hear your personal opinions. Why would such things even need to be discussed?
Ask the people engaging in witch hunts because they're sifting through your online/offline life in order to coerce you. It's not the first time it's happened, it won't be the last time it's happened either.
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a kernel mailing list. Nobody wants to hear your personal opinions. Why would such things even need to be discussed?
Very true, but begs the question why isn't the code of conduct explicitly limited to the mailing list, but instead explicitly extends into meatspace and is deliberately vague
+This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces
+when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of
+representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail
+address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed
+representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be
+further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Particularly loved the last line. might as well write it as " I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further. "
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Res (Score:3)
This is how people talk when they're trying to imagine how the real world works.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, this is how people talk when they've seen Occupy Wallstreet.
Occupy Wall Street was a noble cause which fought against economic corruption and whose success depended on the working and experienced middle and lower class majorities identifying with it. It initially sought to bring before the court the names responsible for the Economic Crisis, and to resolve the problem of top 1% wealth being squandered on liquid wealth picking up dust as opposed to being put to productive use for society as non-liquid wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That remains to be tested in court, but I tend to agree with you.
Of course, people can walk away, and stop contributing, but that's a different matter.
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:5, Informative)
Whether he's serious about any of that or just a troll trying to be utterly outrageous doesn't really matter. When someone has a reputation for spouting all kinds of inane or idiotic crap, it's hardly an ad hominem attack to point out that the person behind some new message has a history of spouting all kinds of crap. If someone told you that a car dealer you were looking to buy from had an extensive history of cheating customers and screwing them over and there's plenty of documented proof of it, you don't accuse the person of making ad hominem attacks against the car dealer. You thank that person for pointing that out and saving you from getting suckered.
Whether the CoC drives people away or not is irrelevant to the person making this push being deranged in some manner.
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:5, Informative)
Nice ad hom. Now try actually contributing to the conversation.
It's actually pretty relevant. One critical question is whether the CoC is an issue for a significant portion of developers or just a few misogynist's on the Internet.
From the article:
Furthermore, Corbet argued, “no actual developer has gone anywhere near this—all of the people talking about rescission on the list are from outside the kernel development community.”
ESR is controversial though he's made legitimate contributions to the Linux eco-system, but MikeeUSA and unconditionedwitness just seem to be a couple really sketchy individuals. Not exactly indications that droves regular devs are bothered by the CoC.
I'll start.
Whether developers can or cannot legally rescind their code the new CoC is absolutely guaranteed to drive away people who believe their contributions are more important than their genitals. For that reason alone this is not going to turn out well.
I'll finish.
Ignoring your bizarre "genitals" comment the whole rescinding code debate is irrelevant.
A: The CoC has me so outraged I'm rescinding my code from the Kernel!
B: Find, oh, BTW, I'm applying a patch based on A's GPL'd code from yesterday.
I don't see how you could possibly pull code that was legally contributed right out of the ecosystem. I mean that was the entire point of the GPL in the first place other people can use the code as long as it stays GPL'd.
If this was allowed then what's to stop Linus from saying "I just changed my mind, my code is no longer GPL'd, anyone running Linux needs to pay me $1,000,000!!"
It's just not how the GPL works.
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, Bruce? If you read the CoC, it has nothing to say about anything technical at all. Specifically, it never says that good code will be accepted regardless of who submits it, which is the only CoC any software project should ever have IMO.
The CoC literally has infinitely more content about genitals and what you chose to do with them than it has about making good software, since it has some text about the former and none about the latter.
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no question that Hans Reiser wrote good code, but he was also extremely abusive to the kernel team, and thus made it very difficult for anyone to work with him. There will be similar reasons that brilliant people will be constitutionally unable to participate in group development, and their code will be excluded because they will be excluded.
I am so glad I did not go to work for Hans. I spoke with Nina on the phone once. This is all so weird.
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:4, Insightful)
There's so much going on here that it's hard to untangle everything. The CoC as written is a blackmailer's charter, but in the real world personalities do matter and it's possible for a person to be excluded simply because "the group" can't work with them.
In a public context like the Linux development team and mailing list I think the reality is that it's hard to hide genuine unfairness and the GPL means that if enough of a mass believe that something has genuinely gone wrong they can take the ball away and play their own game and release their own kernel (trademarking is an issue with that theory, of course). IMO, that's more than enough to "keep it honest".
The new CoC is so broad with its definition of what is abusive that it's suddenly turned normal conversation on the mailing list into a minefield:
"It's crazy to use a signed int for measuring the size of a buffer here."
"'Crazy' is a derogatory comment; you can't refuse my code on that basis."
"Jesus! Right. I'm sorry."
"I'm an atheist and object to your proselytizing at me."
etc.
It's a classic example of more detailed text making it harder to be reasonable instead of easier, or if you prefer making it easier to be unreasonable. For the person who wants to be disruptive, it gives far too many things they can point to while at the same time making it harder for the rest of the group to exclude that disruptive person because "I'm just enforcing the CoC you all agreed to". And none of this is happening in isolation. The damage has been done elsewhere.
As I said on a previous thread, the problems of society are real and need fixed, but they need to be fixed lower down the stack. Once you start writing software that goes into aircraft or cars, meritocracy is the only option.
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:4, Insightful)
The new CoC is so broad with its definition of what is abusive that it's suddenly turned normal conversation on the mailing list into a minefield:
"It's crazy to use a signed int for measuring the size of a buffer here."
"'Crazy' is a derogatory comment; you can't refuse my code on that basis."
"Jesus! Right. I'm sorry."
"I'm an atheist and object to your proselytizing at me."
etc.
It's a classic example of more detailed text making it harder to be reasonable instead of easier, or if you prefer making it easier to be unreasonable. For the person who wants to be disruptive, it gives far too many things they can point to while at the same time making it harder for the rest of the group to exclude that disruptive person because "I'm just enforcing the CoC you all agreed to"
That strikes me as a bit of a contrived example. Some people will nitpick, and I'm sure someone will complain about "crazy" once in a while but it will hardly be a regular thing.
I also think it's a bad idea when reviewing code to use phrases like:
"It's crazy to use a signed int for measuring the size of a buffer here."
Because you're saying it's bad but you're not saying WHY it's bad.
"It's definitely possible for the buffer to exceed 2^15, this should be an unsigned int"
or
"We use unsigned ints for buffer size everywhere else, using signed here would just be confusing"
Sure it's just an example you made up, but it's a real issue. When you reject something you need to give a reason, if you say it's because it's "crazy" or "stupid" you're not really explaining anything but it feels like a justification and people tend to leave it at that. If you're not allowed to be obnoxious you suddenly realize you need to justify your position, sometimes this educates the contributor, but some times you realize you can't justify your position because you were wrong.
Plus, once you call something stupid or crazy it's hard to back down if you made a mistake.
As I said on a previous thread, the problems of society are real and need fixed, but they need to be fixed lower down the stack. Once you start writing software that goes into aircraft or cars, meritocracy is the only option.
But that's it, when you're forced to be respectful you suddenly have to judge on the work rather than acquiescing to whomever is pushing their point more aggressively. It helps create a meritocracy.
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:4, Insightful)
Legal systems around the world have dealt with this issue for hundreds of years. You can't hope to enumerate all possible unwanted behaviours and provide a comprehensive enough definition to prevent people from lawyering they way out.
So instead of set out the general principals and the terms in which courts should evaluate behaviour. That mostly works, and it's the best system anyone has come up with.
The Linux maintainers don't have a judicial system so they are going to have to do their best. I can't see any better solution - dealing with issues as they arise is the only reasonable way.
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:4, Insightful)
The CoC is not "don't be a dick", which would be a great CoC.
It's "don't insult people with a list of protected characteristics". And it's not limited to "on a mailing list": if history is any guide, it will be used to purge anyone whose public politics are unacceptable.
Perfect polite with everyone in technical interactions, but once gave fincancial support to oppose gay marriage? Out with you!
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no question that Hans Reiser wrote good code, but he was also extremely abusive to the kernel team, and thus made it very difficult for anyone to work with him.
Well, given that he ended up murdering someone - perhaps the kernel team should consider themselves relatively lucky.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, congratulations on being introspective enough to see this. 20 years ago I found it quite diff
Re: (Score:2)
Can you perhaps read it and point to some specific issues.
But he already said that
it has nothing to say about anything technical at all
and
it never says that good code will be accepted regardless of who submits it
Didn't he? I'd say that definitely counts as "pointing to some specific issues".
Re: (Score:2)
But the CoC doesn't cover contributors, it only covers people using official Linux Foundation channels for communication. It's not really about contributions.
Having said that, a lot of people would like to see this added so why not submit a patch?
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure I even want to know what this means.
If I were to wager a guess I'd guess the tendency of some people to think everything that happens to them is a form of discrimination based on whatever minority group they happen to be in. We've seen Linus go ballistic on people who presumably are also white heterosexual males, it's not okay but it's a pretty good evidence he's "just" the occasional asshole not a bigot. But if he now attacks the wrong person I expect there to be all kinds of hell and CoC-waving about how Linus is creating a "hostile environment" for women or some sort of LBGT+ group. Some even seem to go around like agent provocateurs, stirring shit up trying to trigger name calling and then pouncing on them as bigots and acting like their taunting is really an act of community service exposing hidden discrimination. And if they don't get the response they want, escalate as this proves how extensive the hidden discrimination is until there's terminations and public boycotts. I think Linus has badly miscalculated in adopting the CoC, it's like an open invitation to all the trolls who are going to try to tear him down and replace him.
Re: (Score:2)
Linus is too smart for this. He can behave in a collegial fashion. Even if he is on the spectrum (which we are getting hints of here, and maybe I am too) he is so high-functioning that he can moderate his own behavior if motivated to do so. And ultimately the folks running the CoC report to him, and he can get rid of it if he wants.
Greg and the other
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:4, Interesting)
You know what I'm going to ask.
I ask it every single time, and never get an answer.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but here goes.
Can you cite one single example, just one, of this actually happening?
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:5, Informative)
Not the original poster, but in the examples of people just purposefully trying to make mountains out of molehills and stir crap to the detriment of all in an open source project realm, would this [github.com] suffice?
There are those out there with too much time on their hands that just want to either seize power through questionable means or watch the world burn. Using moral panic and fear of a mob as means to their ends.
There are common trends in the way these things start/are enforced, and while it may not be of great concern now patterns have been established towards the behavior. In the worst of cases the mob can refuse to stop even in the face of evidence appearing that no wrong doing was ever done [quillette.com].
It may be an overreaction, but it the fear seems to be that this will be the wedge used to allow those willing to use purposeful over-sensitivity and bad faith to accrue power.
Mob mentalities should be feared, but we shouldn't succumb to them or to actors acting in bad faith for their own gain.
Re: Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Res (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, placing code quality above irrelevant incidental features like genitals is exactly the point of anti-bigotry initiatives like the new code of conduct. It's patently obvious that detractors either prefer the maintenance of their social position over code quality or simply believe that women and others protected by the code of conduct are incapable of writing quality code. It's transparent and moronic.
Read as a whole, that's entirely the opposite of what the front page of the CC says... It spends one sentence saying "technical contributions" (read: "code quality") should not be an excuse for "bad behavior" (which is arguable), but most of the rest of the paragraphs talking about "irrelevant incidental features like genitals" and how the owners of such are the hardest hit.
Much of the objection to the new CoC as opposed to the previous one is that the previous one was pretty clearly intended to address behavior, and not the subject. If someone is being too much of an ass, the problem is that he's being an ass, not that he was an ass to person XYZ in particular. This is primarily a "watch out for these special people" document and not a "don't be an ass" document.
Re: Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Res (Score:2)
You can't rescind the code, but you can abandon the maintenance of it.
Re: Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Res (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. As I was quoted in the Motherboard article referenced above, you can decline any further participation in kernel development. However, the noisy folks about this issue do not appear to actually participate in kernel development.
Any actual kernel developers who leave will be replaced by one of the other 4000 active this year. If they have been vociferous about their rights to entirely unlimited conduct (and all of the side-issues that seem to come with that) it may be that the folks on the kernel mailing list are already tired of them and won't miss them.
Re: (Score:3)
The fellow spreading this story that you can "rescind" code is more commonly known as MikeeUSA, a misogynist and general nutcase.
This guy again? I've been told of him being banned from people on a different site, a mailing list and a couple freenode channels. This is literally the only person that I read about that is so obnoxious that other people keep mentioning that he had to be banned. Plenty of people get banned but nobody really talks about it afterward but this guy is an exception.
Straw Man (Score:2)
This is the most ridiculous comment. Half of the tech community is saying people can rescind code on GPLv2 because they read GPLv2 comparried it to GPLv3 and saw that there appears to be a reasonable case for such an interpretation.
Re: (Score:3)
Ha ha ha ha ha. Haw! giggle. sniff.
Maybe 1% of the "tech community" have ever attempted to thoroughly parse a license, much less compare the terms of two, most of them click "yes" without ever reading the language.
If you want to terminate your license, you first have to find cause to do so, which would onl
Re: (Score:2)
Technically that is not how copyright works. If you rescind your license, then you own the copyright, and under law the people currently using it must stop. If they don't then in this case (aka 90% of business done in the world uses linux at some point) lawyer firms start contacting you asking for a 10% stake in the 10 billion dollar suit they want to file on your behalf.
The way you are saying it is like saying, you have to hire a lawyer to prevent yourself from being murdered. No, it is the criminals respo
Re: (Score:3)
Um, I think what you are writing is mostly true for injury cases.
Law firms do not compete to offer their services to Open Source developers to litigate their infringement. Since I am creator of the most-litigated Open Source program (although I didn't bring any of the suits), and I run a compliance business, I am really clear on this.
I also worked for Pixar, and our own attorneys represented us when necessary.
Re:Straw Man (Score:5, Insightful)
In what science-fictional alternate universe would I have not read the GPL? Really.
When you parse licenses, you have to be conscious that they do not exist in a vacuum. They rest upon the entire body of law and precedent going back, in the US case, to British Common Law (yes, courts still cite it here). An important part of all of this law is that when you make a grant, it remains a grant unless the terms of the law or the grant itself allow you to take it back. And generally, they do not. For one thing, the entire structure of business based upon contracts would fail if you had the right to rescind them any time you changed your mind.
So, it does not matter if GPL2 doesn't say it does not terminate, it does matter that the text does not provide any means other than violation of the terms for it to terminate.
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:4, Informative)
This is just obnoxious gamergate folks grabbing at publicity where they can get it.
If you've got to swing your dick out and use gamergate as a fear bludgeon, you've already lost that element. I'll remind you that That it was the people [reddit.com] that were screeching gamergate was evil [reddit.com], who were the ones engaging in shitty behavior [reddit.com]. Everything from doxing, to rape, to sexual harassment, to calling in bomb threats. [twitter.com]
Projection is one hell of a fucking drug.
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:5, Insightful)
There were assholes one both sides of gamergate, to be sure. The odd thing was the fringe elements of gaming seemed to be similarly crazy to the mainstream gaming press. But then the gaming press was always a weird fringe of "the press" so I guess that makes sense.
Either way, gamers won, and games remain mostly focused on gameplay (or monetization, but that's a different issue), not pushing a political agenda.
Genre film, and especially comic books, chose a different path, and seem intent on immolating themselves in the fires of political preaching, but gaming has largely escaped that fate. (Computer gaming, anyhow.)
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:5, Interesting)
The fellow spreading this story that you can "rescind" code is more commonly known as MikeeUSA, a misogynist and general nutcase.
Eric Raymond also weighed in, and said: "First, let me confirm that this threat has teeth. I researched the relevant law when I was founding the Open Source Initiative. In the U.S. there is case law confirming that reputational losses relating to conversion of the rights of a contributor to a GPLed project are judicable in law. I do not know the case law outside the U.S., but in countries observing the Berne Convention without the U.S.'s opt-out of the "moral rights" clause, that clause probably gives the objectors an even stronger case."
Now we have Stallman weighing in and saying the opposite, with "I checked this with a lawyer". But we could also ask what prompted Stallman to add the "irrevocable" clause in GPL version 3.
In neither case do we have an actual link to case law. In other words, this is still an undecided issue. On the surface, Raymond's argument is stronger, but it needs a citation.
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:5, Informative)
The relevant case doesn't come from before the founding of OSI, so Eric appears to be confused here about what research he performed when. The relevant case is Jacobsen v. Katzer, and the parts about reputation come from my own expert testimony. They don't provide a method to terminate a license for a reputational loss.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Res (Score:5, Informative)
Established law includes case law. Bruce's testimony is relevant to case law. Wikipedia is not.
If you want a counter argument with teeth, you need a PJ who can grok law.
A wiki... Not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
Established law includes case law. Bruce's testimony is relevant to case law. Wikipedia is not.
The Wikipedia article is referenced and includes quotations. Bruce did neither. Wikipedia wins. The only case you can have against the Wikipedia article is if you could show their references or quotations were either invalid or taken out of context.
Bruce's testimony does not establish case law. What establishes cases law are the rulings of judges. If Bruce's personal testimony was referenced by a judge, it would be pertinent. Other than that, it's window dressing.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Res (Score:3)
The CoC doesn't say the code is better by X, the CiC says the opposite, that the code is NOT better by X.
That you do not know this says you have not read the CoC but have let others read it for you.
RTFM.
All the CoC says is that you can't - repeat, can't - judge code by the contributor, only the code. If that's what you want to achieve, then maybe that's what you want to achieve it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is "misogynist" the new word for "people who are OK with having a penis?" As the United States saw on Thursday, there is a real war against men in this nation, and I can't imagine that doesn't extend to the entire world. It's quite frankly scary. These types of "codes of conduct" are being used to crush men and male behavior, all in order to "let women feel safe" which is, quite frankly, ridiculous in an online context. If a woman wants to submit code, she can, there's no need for all the men in the world to walk on egg shells just because her delicate womanly emotions might be offended. Oh, except claiming women have delicate womanly emotions is misogynistic, claim the very same people who demand that we not offend them, in a wonderful example of the type of double-think required to believe that merit is bad.
There is actually no way to determine if a particular contributor is male, female or a technically proficient aardvark unless they volunteer the information. So as long as they don't bring their genitals to the list the environment is at baseline no more or less welcoming for women than men, or people who can't figure out the difference.
What this is working towards is having an environment that women like. Which is fine, they should go build their own let the best one win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Resc (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Legitimate Kernel Developers Don't Want To Res (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure you could care less. Indeed, you seem to care far too much that you're identified with certain viewpoints.
But that's a distraction. The Motherboard article provides zero fucking evidence whatsoever that this is anything to do with gamergate. You provide zero fucking evidence whatsoever.
It was obvious from the outset that the push for developers to rescind was a minority voice, and no surprise if it's a troll. I just don't see why the fuck you (or Motherboard, not that they have credibility either)
Re: (Score:3)
"Ignore them, they're gamergate" isn't virtuous. It's a blatant attempt to disregard their viewpoint and insinuate that they're bad because that label has been used by the media to demonise people.
Maybe - just maybe - some of the themes they're spouting are legitimate points of interest, worth discussing further, and highlight genuine causes for concern.
Certainly I've seen harassment of respected Linux contributors by supporters of the CoC, so I guess you're right, the same tactics relating to the same them
code that should be rescinded (Score:5, Funny)
I'm offended by Lennart Poettering and believe his systemd code should be rescinded immediately in violation of fundamental philosophical reasons.
Re: code that should be rescinded (Score:3)
That's at least going to be fun! As much as I agree about the existence of systemd being a headache for many you'd probably have better luck resolving it through other methods.
Meanwhile - I think that Reiserfs went out from the kernel a while ago.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Walk away? (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I don't think foul language is required to tell someone that their contribution is not up to par. Be respectful of others, but also be honest to them. At the same time I also don't believe people need to think of my "feelings" when telling me that I did something stupid. I'd take a good bollocking any day over that wishy-washy we-are-all-equal-unicorns nonsense.
Fully agree. The real question is what happens if someone does decide to use foul or sexist language. Will they tell him: "Language please!" or will he be booted off the project?
Re:Walk away? (Score:5, Insightful)
Will they tell him: "Language please!" or will he be booted off the project?
Why not look at previous examples? The answer is "purge the unbelievers" or "purge the heretics." Doesn't matter what group you pick that's decided to invest into a CoC, but it all goes downhill quickly with actual contributions dropping off, and people arguing over bullshit like master/slave/kill/die/etc and how it needs to be replaced.
Re:Walk away? (Score:5, Informative)
I think the biggest problem is the "you used this language previously on this obscure phpbb forum so we banned you from contributing"
Rescinding code isn't biggest potential problem (Score:3)
It's going to be withdrawing support of contributed code.
I'm sure that there are more than a few packages in the Linux base that would cause significant impacts to distributions if the contributors stopped supporting them. These packages would have to be picked up by new developers, learned and then carefully updated to ensure the changes don't affect other parts of the kernel or distribution.
thanks for the gamergate reference (Score:2)
Create a new community (Score:2, Interesting)
If the CoC are a problem just create a new community and work on the kernel separately.
The CoC is a contradiction in and of itself because you can't kick people out of the community without accusing them of something that CoC says you are not allowed to accuse people of. The CoC is nothing more than a document designed to create Gatekeepers where they can steal the work and effort of others then kick them out of the community while standing up on the work they created. If these guys deserve to be removed.
This happened with CraftBukkit (Score:3)
This happened with the Minecraft server CraftBukkit project a few years ago. After it came to light that Mojang had bought Bukkit (in a not so secretive way), one of the lead CraftBukkit devs in a fit of pique issued take down DCMA notices on all the repos claiming copyright over his contributions which were GPL. CraftBukkit code disappeared from GitHub, the net, and CraftBukkit binaries with it. At the time it did cause harm and almost killed the Bukkit community. Subsequent projects have grown to fill in the gap like Spigot, and now licenses that spell out how contributions work explicitly are used.
And so it begins (Score:4, Insightful)
The utterly toxic and destructive people behind the CoC already have their fist victory: FUD.
Second one will be when they get a high-profile kernel developer excluded, they are already gunning for some.
I predict that in the future any successful FOSS project will need a CoC that states "There never will be a CoC." right from the start.
The Code of Conduct is a poison pill (Score:5, Insightful)
The CoC is a poison pill.
Let me tell you the story of the Pirate Party in Germany. I was a member, so this is inside perspective:
Once upon a time, a german Pirate Party was founded, and got rapid interest. It growed quickly and the timing was right. New surveilance laws brought public interest to the party topics, and it had some success at elections as well as a media interest far larger than its single-digit election percents would justify.
But it was growing in both success and popularity. Some hopeful observers started to give it chances to enter the german parliament (which has a 5% treshold). It did successfully enter multiple local and state parliaments.
Then the trolls took over. Suddenly all these topics of equal rights and protection of minorities and proper language and genderism and what else you have was on the agenda, and in a tense internal vote even entered the party platform. The original concept of the Pirate Party - digital civil rights - became a side note. A lot of weirdos made career inside the party, and the tools they used to edge out the original pirates was the same as the CoC. Wordings, language, conduct. It was the end of the Pirate Party. Nobody is talking about them anymore, and the last national election got them 0.4 % of the votes, which is their worst result ever and an 82% loss compared to the previous election.
These things have become tools for people with completely different agendas. None of the Pirate Party trolls had any history of making anyones life better. There are certainly causes worth fighting for and there are certainly cases where improper language, prejudices and such are harming people and there are people who stand up for them and help those affected. But the vast majority of social justice warriors have no such history. They have nothing under their belt where their actions actually made the life of an actual person better. Theirs war is in the abstract. "women are harmed by ..." - which woman exactly, when exactly and how exactly?
---
We nerds are susceptible to this kind of arguing because we can think abstractly and don't think it unusual. That is why social justice warriors thrive in the academic environment. In a farming village, nobody would take them seriously, because people are interested in actual milk from actual cows, not milking theory.
Look for actual harm to actual people, or ask for references of where these warriors managed actual benefits to actual people with their demands and actions. If they cannot provide evidence of either, disregard their bullshit and call it for what it is.
It still pains when I think of the takeover and destruction of the German Pirate Party. Please don't let the same happen to the Linux kernel. Keep out the trolls.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any team that relies on a gold laying goose is doomed when that goose inevitably gets cooked. And as bad as building your team around an individual indispensable goose is, it's even worse to build it around a flock of indispensable geese.
The truth is that a gold egg laying goose may be valuable, but it's not indispensable; its value is finite and it is replaceable. Eventually the world is going to get along fine without every single one of us.
Really I think a lot of what's going on here is the death of a
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There's no general availabity of smart and productive people - Ok, if you say so.
I found that if I treated people right, my company had few issues finding and hiring these people. Just an anecdote, I'm sure it's different everywhere else.
Re: (Score:3)
Straw man much? But just for fun, let's examine the actual strength of that strawman.
The first version of Linux I downloaded was Debian 0.93R6, which came out in October of 1995. At the time, this wouldn't have been my first choice; my first choice was 386BSD, which boasted a *much* more mature kernel, and whose BSD userland I was more familiar with than the then-odd GNU patchwork you got with Linux. The thing was that BSD at the time was the subject of a lawsuit, and the 386BSD was not a party to the set
Re: (Score:3)
Meritocracy is about...merit. Disruptive "it's all about me" isn't merit, no matter what else they do....Making others less productive or putting them off isn't merit.
Listening less to those who've made solid contributions, rather than to whiners simply isn't smart, nor is it meritorious. Simples?
.
Personally, as an engineer, as an inventor, as a m
Re:The goose (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, IMO, just as bad - I MUST accept your stuff, no matter how bad, because your particular "identity politic bullshit self-description" is otherwise under represented - essentially self-defined repression with self-prescribed and demanded affirmative action required.
And while the current CoC looks reasonable, we have plenty of evidence that it devolves into what I describe once you let that camel's nose under the tent. Everyone has always been free to NOT leverage the work of those they dislike. When Linus rants, I frankly find it entertaining and for a good cause - an example is having code submitted that won't even compile. Is he supposed to apologize for the submitter's incompetence or lack of caring about what's actually important?
Re: (Score:2)
It is relevant to where the ridiculous idea (that you can stop people from using code you've previously released under an open source license) came from, and why.
It seems to be trolling. The GPL provisions which free code from its creators control go all the way back to 1989, and in all that time, and in the early 90s there was a big FUD debate over whether contributors could rescind their contributions that was largely intended to scare people into sticking with Microsoft. But in all these years, nobody
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I hear someone saying that something if "for principle", it is always to justify something that is purely spiteful.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I hear someone saying that something if "for principle", it is always to justify something that is purely spiteful.
That's selection-bias on your part.
Start listening to better people with better principles. I'd suggest the US Constitution and it's authors as a start.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
The idiocracy is coming closer every day...
Re: (Score:2)
Freeâ(TM) software not open source. Don't confuse the two or that guy that informally represents Freeâ(TM) software will get agitated.