Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman Says Linux Code Contributions Can't Be Rescinded (itwire.com)
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."
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.
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.
Bruce Perens.
You might get rid of the goose (geese) that lays the eggs, but then you get no more eggs from that goose. And wind up having to prove your BS is as good as a real meritocracy. GoodLuckWithThat, takes longer for the effect to show than some would like (slow degradation vs dead tomorrow) - but it will show.
If all this equality stuff is true, why is your worldview so much more important or valid than mine that you have to force it on me? I detect a logical error.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
I'm offended by Lennart Poettering and believe his systemd code should be rescinded immediately in violation of fundamental philosophical reasons.
This is irrelevant to the question of whether contributions can be rescinded, and in that sense, it is not worth noting. But of course, if you wish to apply rules selectively depending on political allegiances, then it is very important to know whether somebody is associated with your political enemies.
Why did this have to be added to GPLv3 then?
Lawyers can disagree.
They may not be able (and neither want) to rescind their contributions, but some people might decide to walk away from the project. Depending on the person this could be a setback for any project, even one as big as the Linux kernel. The fact that Linus himself is "taking a break to fix his behavioural issues" could be a sign of the things to come.
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.
Nice ad hom. Now try actually contributing to the conversation. 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.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
The funny part is you're the only one talking about genitals. The vast majority of contributors are too busy coding to worry about autists like you.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Well, this kernel developer can't rescind anything, but chiefly only because I have no clue what the word means. Even after googling.
From the context of the summary it sounds a bit like the process of revoking the license to their contributions, which would be pretty obviously impossible under GPL section 4. So what is all this fuss, or why do we need RMS to state the obvious?
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.
I like talking about genitals, specifically I would like u to suck my DAMN balls
the new CoC is absolutely guaranteed to drive away people who believe their contributions are more important than their genitals
Why is that?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
You can't rescind the code, but you can abandon the maintenance of it.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Not sure I even want to know what this means.
Bruce Perens.
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.
Your bigotry against gamergate is showing. It's about ethics in game journalism, not whatever strawman you've had built for you by the gaming media.
What sort of story is this? Guy who informally represents Open Source as a whole says you cannot do the thing that is bad for open source, and but if you did it would be really bad.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
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.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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 the person who is the core behind it already began the witch hunt. Other people are doing the same thing, using the CoC to purge their ideological enemies.
Tell me something, what matters to you more? Code written by someone who you couldn't give a shit about over their opinions, or code written by people who are kept in line through coercion and fear.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
Bruce Perens.
Because despite what its proponents claim, when the rubber hits the road it replaces meritocracy with the progressive stack.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
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.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
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 that were screeching gamergate was evil, who were the ones engaging in shitty behavior. Everything from doxing, to rape, to sexual harassment, to calling in bomb threats.
Projection is one hell of a fucking drug.
Om, nomnomnom...
The CoC has nothing ot do with if you can rescind your code or not. You can't. If you submitted it as GPLv2 then it is always available to be included in GPLv2 code. You can change the license, but that only applies to versions going forward. The license is all that matters.
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.
I just want to see the confirmation hearing.
He's a really skilled and effective troll. He's entirely roped in a whole bunch of people who should have known better (I didn't recognize him at first either) and who have spent energy on this whole "rescind" thing when, as far as I can tell, no real kernel developer even plans to rescind anything.
Bruce Perens.
I was kind of curious so I searched "MikeeUSA" and one of the top hits is an Encyclopedia Dramatic page for him. That's pretty much a guarantee that he's some kind of complete nutter just in itself. Apparently he got thrown off of Sourceforge years and years ago for being a dick and has made posts online in support of men being able to marry or have sex with pre-pubescent girls.
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.
This is how people talk when they're trying to imagine how the real world works.
"Old man yells at systemd"
why would this person (not assuming any gender or race u stupidd faggit) be modded down you stupid faggot mods. the mods are lazy /\/IGGERS
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.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This is a kernel mailing list. Nobody wants to hear your personal opinions. Why would such things even need to be discussed?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
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.
I stole this Sig
How about you guys fork the code and create your own kernel? I'd love to see how that goes over.
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.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Not really. All it'll do is drive away people who think their "contributions" are a license not to act like a personm They wind up doing more harm than good in the end anyway, so this is no big loss. No one will miss them when they're gone.
I say let them pull their code. It'll hurt for a year -maybe two- while their code gets replaced. But in the long term, it will be a good lesson to them and the community: these creeps were never indispensable, never irreplaceable. Sure it's painful, but when people drag shit down as much as they do, replacing them is still worthwhile.
There are plenty of people on the other side, who would love to rescind code because someone associated with a project isn't toeing the "corrct" political line.
AustistOS. Your waifu awaits.
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.
Bruce Perens.
Seriously, this is exactly where open source shines!
Nobody has to make any compromises, and everybody can get what he wants!
If people disagree, they fork. And then share everything they still have in common.
It's beautifully simple and healthy. It works because information is free.
And frankly, it's how our legal system should be too.
(The only hindrance there of course being that land is not forkable like that. But I'd still like to see competing states on the same lands. i mean we know that monopoly is bad, so we should not allow the dominant group [aka government] to have it either.)
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
You didn't even read the CoC before criticising it?
Can you perhaps read it and point to some specific issues. It's pretty short, you can just quote whole sections.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
Bruce Perens.
You mean like the senate right now?
One of the times Disney and Hollywood (legally) bribed Congress to extend copyright, Congress put in a backdoor for content authors as a CYA for themselves politically. So you CAN potentially terminate depending on a couple of legal issues, or (depending on the answers to those issues for a particular project/contribution/etc...) maybe you need a majority vote of the open source project developers.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203
...urging them to [use a] set of nuclear weapons in pique over an internal matter of the development team for Linux.
No, this is not just some spoiled coders in "pique" over some minor internal squabble.
This is a matter of basic principles of fairness and a stand to *save* the linux development team from Post-Modern identity-politics SJW hysteria and eventual self-destruction as the team tears itself apart with accusations from snowflakes and haters.
If this Post-Modernist insanity is allowed free reign the linux development team is DOOMED.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
How nice of you to call them "gamergate folks". Don't you realize that what they're doing now is exactly what they did to gamergate? How would you like it if people called these assholes "Linux folks" in a couple of years?
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.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
How do you boil a frog?
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. "
I, for one, am very excited to see the positive aspects bringing politics into software development will bring. It should definitely improve the quality of software development. After all, who hasn't had their compiler complain that the source code was of an incompatible political stance?
Wait, what, that never happened? Say it ain't so, that computers don't have politics and politics are naturally incompatible with computers?
Huh. Could have fooled me.
It's alright, we will always have BSD!
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
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.
That right there is the number one reason I don't try to contribute to the kernel. My code may be decent enough but I have an abrasive enough personality I personally feel I would cause more headache than my code contributions might be worth.
The linux kernel is a very high profile project and is much an exercise in management as it is code writing. Something like a CoC may run off some of the more abrasive coders who might not even be "abusive" just a bit harder to deal with, but it will also make it easier for major companies to contribute as it clears up the management side of things.
So this fear of running off coders.... I'm sorry but chances are if the CoC is going to run you off you aren't valuable enough to contribute.
As for guys like me I have plenty of other open source projects I contribute to and even maintain (some with quite substantial user numbers). So my ego for contributing to open source is stoked enough no need to go create headaches for someone else just to stoke it further.
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".
Ezekiel 23:20
We can just slander whoever we want now at get +5 interesting? Wow.
Well then, Taco blows goats and Heimos sold smallpox to the Libyans in 1998.
They theory is that the misogynistic assholes who treat other developers like crap are more important than the people they drive away, so if you do not cater to the fragile egos of a handful of jerks they will take their code away and no one will replace them.
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.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
We are approaching the Singularity of stupid.
"a misogynist and general nutcase"
So what you're saying is, he's a nice guy and quite reasonable?
Nobody on the kernel team is going to force acceptance of bad code on the basis of code-of-conduct issues. If you call someone "crazy" and they rightly point out that you can, and should, be more colegial, that is not going to result in code acceptance.
Bruce Perens.
Without that, we might forget that the culture war is permeating more and more of our daily lives.
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... remove their code too! Because if you don't then you are making a contradictory statement that says, assholes are not good enough to be in our community but their work sure is good enough to KEEP and use for ourselves!
Hypocrisy is the entire point of the CoC because it and its members are breaking their own rules!
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 others at the top are not idiots either.
Bruce Perens.
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
that he would not accept shit code, no matter which meme sexuality, race, gender, and whatnot it comes from.
He will continue accepting good code only, and witch-hunts by retarded Social Justice Evangelists will be shut down as well as the same by neo-nazis and such.
So I don't see all of this happening.
On the other hand, i see the Code of Conduct being heavily edited and changed after Linus is back from his vacation since he's observing the conversation,
and i'm certain he won't accept a Code of Conduct for good when it's written by brainlet idiots without Law Degrees or any qualifications regarding such topics.
As such i think all of this is just dust-raising.
We get it, SJWs have truly shown themselves to be a group as retarded as alt-right. It's something every normal person is already aware of,
and every normal person is not going to be sorry for being born in a certain way or for their ancestors having the foresight and wisdom to establish
a better environment for their culture as opposed to others (as that would be spitting in the face of ancestors without which you wouldn't be born, which is an affront to your existence).
So shut your jabber and leave this to experts like Linus and his troop. They ain't gonna disappear since they can't be replaced by SJWs in terms of creating a kernel, else SJWs would be creating their own out of nothing like LInus and his troop did at the start without having to threaten and subvert an existing industry and environment.
Progressives always think they're sooooooo smart and sooooooo right. Just like any other band of religious nutjobs.
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.
That's your assertion. It's possible Raymond was talking about another case. I looked this case up, and it's about the Artistic License, not the GPL. The case was ultimately settled, and the only legal precedent that Wikipedia mentions is: "The case established the rule of law that terms and conditions of the Artistic License 1.0 are "enforceable copyright conditions".[3]"
You're going to need an actual reference and quotation to back up your claims.
Well, congratulations on being introspective enough to see this. 20 years ago I found it quite difficult to get along, indeed on one or two occasions I told the entire Slashdot community to screw themselves :-)
Age or experience seems to have mellowed me in that regard. Maybe it will work for you.
Bruce Perens.
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!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Author: A. Hitler
Kernel maintainer comments: Approved. Code looks legit and tight; changing main routine name - 'meinkampf' is a bit off-putting
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
As long it can be forked it doesn't matter. Basicaly anyone(a single person or a whole group) from this Planet can download Linux source code, can apply their one modifications, make available to dowload along side bynaries, and that's all.
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 while appeasing all sides. It was picking up pace and power initially.
Then something changed. SJWs appeared and media diverted all spotlight focus on young inexperienced retarded people talking stupid shit on camera and SJW snowflakes; so the normal experienced adults who the majority population identifies with were overflooded and overshadowed by meme-identities, young uneducated idiots, and plain idiots.
The "progressive stack" was introduced, whereby the retarded and stupid people got speech bumps over educated people, and snowflakes and meme-identities had speech bumps over the people who most of society would identify with.
The source of the problem was diverted from specific names of the Economy Crashers and dealing with the liquid problem so that all parties are satisfied, to blaming everything on intangible concepts and a whole gender and race.
Its success depended on the majority identifying with it, while its failure was met by the majority being disassociated from it due SJW retardation and "anti-normative" politics while the media played those minority memes as the driving force which put the final nails in the coffin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W81A1kTXPa4
BUT you are dick-less...
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?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Why do you hate women? Did your mom spank you once as a child because you were a horrible brat?
Google has fired people for saying less.
this story that you can "rescind" code
Is that really "a story"? In my country, I'm pretty sure it's a part of author-related rights. At the very least, distribution of copies of copyrighted works hinges on author's permission. Without said permission the act of distribution (such as hosting a repository) would be illegal.
Nice job with the red herrings, though.
Ezekiel 23:20
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.)
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Dear SJWs you can't fuck off (or even fuck on) outside of developed world you are only ghosts, immaterial phantoms.
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 ethical person would fight for.
I hope Stallman's transformation from idealist to corporate lawyer is reversible.
"I checked with a lawyer" is a pretty stupid thing to say.
I agree with the conclusion that a code contribution is a donation that cannot be rescinded. You wouldn't take a dollar from the hat of a street musician, or $100 back from NPR. You can't have your code back (absent a pre-arranged contract).
"I checked with a lawyer?" Please.
Bill Gates is a communist -- he's just more equal than the rest of us.
Would be nice if the Linux developers wouldn't let themselves be dragged into the CoC trap in the first place. If you are worried about developers hurting the open software community by rescinding code, you'd better consider the damage that SJW crap is bringing to sociëty as a whole. Not just Linux, or open source, but to civilization. Common sense has been replaced by eternal butthurts. Yes, Linus has some problems. Yes, he should get some anger control therapy. But there is zero excuse for turning the community over to groups that demand inclusion for the the sake of inclusion, rather than for the sake of progressing the Linux kernel.
There isn't a single line of code that is better because it was written by a gay person, by a woman, by a transgender, by a religious minority or by a 'person of color'. Code is good or code is bad. That's it. If butthurt snowflakes want to be included for their contributions, they'd better start writing Code of Linux, not Code of Conduct crap.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
You know, can someone explain wether in the USA one is allowed to basically claim to be a lawyer *and* also claim to be speaking in a professional instance, without actually being one *and* licensed for practice?
Where I live, that is a crime, and can land you in jail.
They didn't convince him shit.
BBC interview:
Linus Torvalds: 'I'll never be cuddly but I can be more polite'
"So that's my excuse for dismissing a lot of the politically correct concerns for years. I felt it wasn't worth it. Anybody who uses the words 'white cis male privilege' was simply not worth my time even talking to, I felt."
"And I'm still not apologising for my gender or the colour of my skin, or the fact that I happen to have the common sexual orientation."
"Because I may have my reservations about excessive political correctness, but honestly, I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour. And those people were complaining about too much political correctness too, and in the process just making my public stance look bad."
"Will everybody be happy? No. People who don't like my blunt behaviour even when I'm not being actively nasty about it will just see that as 'look, nothing changed'. I'm trying to get rid of my outbursts, and be more polite about things, but technically wrong is still technically wrong, and I won't start accepting bad code just to make people feel better about themselves".
He takes a shit on both the far left social justice evangelists and the alt-right retards. You can calm down now.
Out with you!
But we're keeping your code, against your wishes. We're the good guys.
If you submitted it as GPLv2 then it is always available to be included in GPLv2 code.
Perhaps in the US it works like that. The world is a big place, though.
Ezekiel 23:20
Except for those transfaggot creatures that need a "safe space" to spend all day discussing how some code label "makes them feel"
Right? because your little feelings "are Very Important" ? and other gay shit
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.
#DeleteChrome
Posting to cancel mistaken moderation.
The lesson here is that a sufficiently large corporation is indistinguishable from government. --ultranova
Ah yes, the tired old cries of misogyny, gamergate and whatnot. It's always the same when "progressive" activists face resistance: comply or be unpersoned.
You mean the fragile egos of the cunts and faggots who cant seeing certain words.
Because that's actual fragility. It's their ego at risk of being shattered, like some big gay piece of shit filled with estrogen and tears
I'm pretty sure no-takesies-backsies is universal. Just kidding. I have a hard time believing that someone can change a license retroactively on a particular version once it has been licensed. If I built a product based on your GPL code and then you decided to retroactively change the license that would cause material harm. You can change the license going forward, but I don't think you can change it for already licensed versions.
> There is no question that Hans Reiser wrote good code,
After repeated attempts, I found reiserfs to be unstable and unusable for any system with data my employer cared about.The irony of his murder of his wife and attempt to conceal the evidence was not lost on me. After numerous experiences with reiserfs destroying data and the fsck for reiserfs trying to clean up the evidence so badly, the irony was profound. Ghoulish, but profound.
Did you find other projects that he contributed to or worked on effectively? I acknowledge that this was long enough ago that I do not remember seeing such contributions. I also suspect that you'd be _much_ more likely to remember than I am.
I think you're missing the point. Of course copyright requires the permission of the copyright holder (who is not necessarily the author, much copyrighted work is work-for-hire). But having granted a license, can you just say "I changed my mind?" Lots of people would like to get out of contracts that way, but the law doesn't let them.
Bruce Perens.
Whatever you put in a fucking contract NEVER SUPERCEDES EXISTING LAW.
So, Mr. Stallman, you need to shut the fuck up because copyright STILL FUCKING APPLIES.
It's like this. There are people in the community you never really wanted around, because they refuse to act like people, but you had to tolerate them because Ostracism Is Evil. And they dragged shit down and ruined things for everyone, kind of like the bullies told you back in school, but because of that you find yourself empathizing with them, so you try to find some way to at least make them useful. Who knows? Maybe if they felt valued they'd finally grow; isn't that how self-esteem is supposed to work?
But it didn't. All it did was make them thing they were irreplaceable and indispensable, and that meant they found a place where they didn't have to do all those things they didn't want them to do -things like, you know, acting like people- and they got worse, not better. And good people started leaving, because that was preferable to putting up with this shit any longer, and then they judged you for continuing to enable these creeps.
And your patience has run out. You're not going to put up with their abuse of your social largesse anymore. And that scares them to death, because they know there's nobody else: every other social group cast them out before they found you, and there won't be any others: they refuse to meet any bar other than "no bar".
That leaves them with four options: convince you to keep them in, force you to keep them in, go back ro being outcasts, or finally meet those developmental milestones they've been refusing to cross. Making shit up about the opposition is Option 1: "genitals matter more than code" and similar idiocy. Threatening to withdraw easily-replaceable code is Option 2: rescinding licenses as though it couldn't be pulled from elsewhere and adapted, or if worse came to worst just rewritten, within a year or two.
Honestly, I say just let them have their code. It can be replaced, only slightly less easily than they can. Demonstrating this to them would be a powerful lesson.
This is a kernel mailing list. Nobody wants to hear your personal opinions. Why would such things even need to be discussed?
Which definition of "personal opinion" are you using?
If you are using the dictionary definition, then yes you are correct, which is why people don't do that.
But if you are using the definition in the CoC, the answer is because *it is the kernel mailing list* and it is implied this is where you discuss the kernel.
Someone who writes a sound card driver for example may make a post "I changed the init sequence from sending 0xFF to sending a 0x00 three times, waiting 100ms, and then sending 0xFF. I had to do this to make it work with brand BLAH"
The above statement is defined as a personal opinion by the CoC, and if brand BLAH is a company run by a female, the person making the above "personal opinion" is performing an attack on all women
Again, this is how the CoC defines all these words. At that point the CoC grants the board the right to commit crimes against the driver author such as doxing them, infringing the authors copyright, and falsifying claims about which animals the author routinely has sex with to the authors employer.
Most of the rest of us believe doing any of the above is immoral, illegal, and shouldn't be found acceptable.
Also most of the rest of us would answer your question "Why would such things even need to be discussed?" with an answer of "Because technical details about a driver working around a flaw in a piece of hardware require discussion to ensure such a change doesn't break any other code."
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.
If any court allowed you to retroactively change a license or contract it would destabilize everything. What if I built a product on your GPL code and you decided to retroactively change the license? You can change it going forward, but not backward. I don't know any court that would allow changing licenses retroactively to happen. A person could definitely walk away though, or even change the license of their code in subsequent releases. This has happened many times.
Who said anything about my dick, you faggot?
The code of coduct is Non-binary. It's all about feelings and feeling those feelings - and Today it feels like a girl.
Tomorrow it may feel like a Dragonwolf/Helicopter
Go read my testimony, not the Wikipedia. It's available online.
Bruce Perens.
But they're retroactively policing thought purity and scheming to avoid any consequences from their victims' response.
coc is just the current form of 1984 big brother. that big hammer is legit since it's been blessed by sjw incantations.
Your claim that Linus could simply "get rid of" some LGTB+ advocate over their conduct with no meaningful repercussions if the situation warrants it isn't just ridiculous on the faith of it, but brands you as being in extreme and complete bad faith. You know this is not true. Why poison a community with shit like this and dampen down objections with blatant and obvious lies?
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.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Well, for starters, somebody pushing all this publicly referring to a person who got banned less than 24 hours later as a 'rape apologist' might prove a disincentive.
Yes, that really happened, yes in the timeframe specified, and so far as I'm aware the person so referring has not been dismissed despite that statement itself being a violation of the new code of conduct.
People with marketable talent do not like a do not have to put up with that bullshit.
coc is just a tiny wedge, then what? kerneld?
The problem is that any reasonable person engaging in a discussion like this will immediately be smeared with incorrectly applied words like that. I don't know if they are lies or truth in this case, but the accusation carries zero credibility because it would be made unfailingly regardless of all facts. But worse, it's irrelevant anyway. The real issues are whether the coc is an attack on meritocracy and what can be done if it is.
he complains that because of people like me, the law doesn't allow him to marry very young girls.
What's people like you?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
the only project of any size I know that folks site for that is LLVM, but, well, LLVM has been in decline for some time now and as far as I can tell they're just losing devs to more exciting projects.
Also, keep in mind that the sword cuts both ways. You can lose people to toxicity.
Back in the 90s a woman coded a working Sega CD emulator long before Kega had one. She did it for her college graduation project. It was real, and we know it was real, because we had corroboration from her school. She was getting ready to release it to the public when a raft of what can best be described as the 4chan elite descended on her demanding she release it _right_now_ and with some of the worst language possible. Most of it written around her gender.
Feeling genuinely threatened She basically dropped off the face of the earth; and that included never releasing the emulator.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Go read my testimony, not the Wikipedia. It's available online.
I don't care about your testimony. What I care about is established case law: what the judges ruled. It would also help if Raymond could clarify if it was this case or some other case he was thinking of, as well as the same legal justifications that I've asked of you.
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.
I stole this Sig
Any actual kernel developers who leave will be replaced by one of the other 4000 active this year.
Spoken like a true remorseless totalitarian.
True enough. Snowflake SJW write systematicaly shit-code ... as-if laming the swift and blinding the far-sighted was their job description. As Rawlsian cunt that's 99% true.
Read this and this.
I suspect that he's not actually violating the law until he attempts to contract to provide someone with legal counsel. All of my consulting contracts make it clear I'm not an attorney, for that reason.
Bruce Perens.
Around the time Google was celebrating its first decade, European lawmakers often focused on the premise that someone could ask for information to be deleted, and this was known as the right to be forgotten.
In my experience, most developers didn't believe it was plausible to implement anything like this. And, most legal scholar-minded people didn't feel that it was a sensible prerogative. After all, if Milo Yiannopoulos could simply instruct Twitter to delete their records of his suspension, he could go back to the platform.
However, in the ensuing decade we've gotten better at technology and administration. We now find it more feasible to delete people in a more complete sense, and the GDPR has forced us to consider it, at least somewhat seriously. Yet, in many ways it is just as, if not more, preposterous than ever.
even in Europe property rights (IP law) are going to trump Moral rights.
Do you have any idea the chaos that would ensue if you could claim you were morally wrong and thus reclaim copyright on something you previously licensed away? Imagine a musician claiming, under that precedent, that he was morally wronged by how his music was used and therefore rescinded his granting of copyright to his record label.
No, there's now way that's going to pass muster. Even if you want to argue that, as a matter of law, this might be correct, as a matter of how law is applied it's not going to happen.
As the saying goes, Possession is 9/10ths of the law
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
When are people going to learn that GG was never about misogyny...
You can read the ruling online as well. There is not another case regarding reputation and Open Source software.
Bruce Perens.
I think he referred to me as a "Social Justice Warrior". A lot of you have seen benefit from my "Social Justice" work, such as all of this Open Source stuff, removing the requirement that you pass a test on Morse Code before you can have a ham license, etc.
Bruce Perens.
If I understand this correctly this would be built in poison pill and destroy Open Source as we know it.
If a company/individual wanted to seriously harm an open source project they would make significant contributions to a project that becomes integrated and built upon and then at some point announce they want to rescind their contributions and thereby destroying the project. This is pure stupidity.
Ummmm, no. The CoC says only that contributions must be judged on merit not genitals.
Before opposing something, it helps to RTFM.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
of the GPL. Would you be posting this same post if the person in question wanted their code back because they discovered it's worth millions? Or if they didn't like the political party Linus Torvald's belongs to?
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There is no war against men, just stupidity.
Nobody's fault but yours if you elect to belong to the latter group.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You can read the ruling online as well.
You're making the claim as to precedence. I'm not going to do the work of backing up your claims for you.
It's open source. Who gives an f what you support? If the code is good, it will survive. If you aren't, you'll be forgotten.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Not really. How, precisely, do you have absolute totalitarian individuals with free as in freedom?
Is that the best the right can do?
I am tired of this stupidity. If you're not willing to read the CoC or apply common sense, you earn the contempt of others. Don't blame them for treating you the way you behave.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yawn. I am not feeling the need to further educate you.
Bruce Perens.
unconditionedwitness was posting from an redchan email.
That is pretty much all you need to know, to realise it is a misogynistic troll.
So yes, a copyright holder *CAN* ask that their code contributions be removed from a GPL project, but in practice, this isn't going to amount to much because of the ability for a person who had received a GPL licensed work to freely make forks of the work they received anyways.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This isn't an organic metamorphosis. These types of infiltrations are done on purpose by groups that you don't see. They're planned and funded by those who seek to destroy the societies that stand in their way, either to power or profit.
This "weaponized SJW" tactic is being used against free software communities to the benefit of large software corporations that they compete with. I'd be willing to bet that if an investigation were done, you'd find a money trail right back to Big Tech.
Same goes for the news media in society. They're being used to divide the nation with the same tactics to the benefit of authoritarians, other nations and subhuman creeps like Soros.
If an enemy is bigger and more powerful than you, the first step is to attempt to divide it.
Do not let this happen. Use their tactic against them. Start a CoC and watch as the SJWs come out of the woodwork to try to use it. Then once you've identified them, kick THEM out instead.
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The author has no right granted by the GPL to revoke the freedoms of others. Indeed, the GPL is explicit. Nobody, not even the author, can remove the freedom of another.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This is primarily a "watch out for these special people" document
This seems to be a very often misunderstood point. Some people even got it into their heads that there is some kind of hierarchy or special list.
The only reason to mention any particular attributes is to make sure it's clear that they are not grounds for discrimination. And of course "gender" doesn't just mean women, "sexual orientation" includes straight people and the like.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yes. That was decided in trials involving advertising, first amendment, political speech and other related stuff.
I don't agree with deliberate false claims intending to mislead, particularly when expertise is claimed and thus undermined
However, that's their system.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You can change the license, but that only applies to versions going forward.
I'm pretty certain that IP licences are not irrevocable and perpetual by default. Saying that "you can never rescind your license" is saying that every licence is irrevocable by default, and I'm pretty certain that that is not the case.
After all, I've seen plenty of licenses state "irrevocable". What's the point of a licence granting irrevocable usage rights if you already have them?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
It's a "Code of Conduct", not a "Code of Personality". You can perfectly well be a mass murderer and contribute code at the same time as long as you keep your communications separate from your convictions.
diseases start small, and grow and take over the host. CoC is a disease.
If we'd convinced people without a brain, you'd be in favour of it. Obviously, those aren't the ones convinced.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
nothing to get in a tizzy over.
It's interesting that you have to make this about the person and not about the argument, then you try to bring unrelated politics into this, and try to focus everyone on some guy. We know that playbook. It doesn't work any more. We know and have realized that there's a group of people trying to socially dominate all other groups in society. You have no principles whatsoever beyond whatever convenient things you might say to advance your positions.
We also know that the GPLv3 added a clause to address rescission precisely because of the threat of what's happening now. You do not, because you cannot, address this fact. I need make no other argument, but the ethical one is also there: you want to take other people's code and then exclude them. This is no different from how anti-freedom the idea of having free software with clauses that XYZ can't use it, which we long ago settled was wrong. Not that I don't expect to see you guys revisit that one later on, once you use this to cut everyone who isn't in favor of you from leadership positions.
Yes, we already know that you want to exclude certain folks you dislike politically from the projects simply because you want to force people not to believe anything you don't want them to. It's painfully obvious that you're using this to install your clique and create hegemony. The irony here is that the people you're sucking up to will eventually abandon you because it's inconvenient and we'll point and laugh at your eventual downfall because we understand the people you're sucking up to better than you do and you can never truly be a member of their in-group, nor can they trust you with any influence once you're not longer useful.
The irony is that I have reason to think your own "friends" already have plans to do you in and you don't even realize it. If you were smart you'd get out of this now and keep your head down, but I suppose that's not a realistic option for you at this point. You may not realize how problematic you are to them. I wonder if you even know it? It's going to be really sad when you find out that you were just being used. Or maybe not, are you really a stranger to that?
Then again, what the hell do I know? You're famous, I'm just an AC nobody.
Say hi to Stanley for me.
LOL. I hope Linux gets gutted. I will be on the sidelines laughing my ass off.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander right? Oh it's not? Fucking hypocrites.
Not really.
This is about the kernel, not distros.
Most packages can be substituted without impact, the bulk of projects are disposable.
So, no, you don't seem to understand either the issue discussed or the disposable nature of the supplemental projects.
As I've said before here, RTFM.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Can you really sell (or give away) a copy of a book and then change your mind and demand it back in your country? Do you have to reimburse the person? What about interest and such?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I repeat, a disease starts our small, then spreads. CoC is a disease.
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.
A code of conduct does not address intent but effect. "My communication skills are broken so everyone needs to adapt" is not a useful approach in settings where people are not in personal relation with one another and basically have to interpret other people's statements void of personal knowledge. And insults don't scale linearly. If you are frequently insulted because of who you are, getting insulted because of code you wrote carries a different weight than when you don't have to contend with that kind of fuckery on a semi-permanent base.
Yes, behaving in a civil manner may come harder to some people than others, and a large affinity with computers' reactions may correlate with a smaller affinity with people's reactions. But that does not mean that you shouldn't try. If you frequently accept a computer saying "no, that won't do", why wouldn't you accept a human saying "no, that won't do"?
Let's talk about that time you hit your girlfriend 25 years ago Bruce. Or did you forget? I didn't.
The GPL is a virus. There is no central owner in the sense of copyright law.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
How about this. You make a contribution to an open source project, something very useful, so other people build on it etc. It isn't necessarily 'brilliant''; if you hadn't contributed it, someone else would have contributed something that did the same thing, maybe worse, maybe better, but good enough, but they didn't because why reinvent the wheel. So, after people have incorporated your stuff in good faith into their projects, you decide to yank it. It causes a great disruption. Is that right?
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
...right now. The fear is precisely that the CoC will be used as a coup to first right kick out abusive maintainers and over time exclude any that simply don't follow some code-unrelated agenda. At that point, you're hiring in maintainers that know more about resolving personal conflicts in a diplomatic way using accepted language, not actually maintaining code. Eventually Linus would just be replaced with a committee (either because of the stress of dealing with these people or because "the maintainers" encourage it), and then it's death by committee.
I'm not saying it'll play out this way. I am saying that a lot of companies have went this way when they've adopted either absurd CoC or absurd interpretations of their CoC. So, people have reason to worry about Linux.
If those parasites takes control with the COC (that is why they want it), they are going to kill Linux and others FOSS projects in a slow and painful death.
Yawn. You failed to back up your claims. Not only did you not "educate" me, you've shown yourself unwilling to back up your claims to every reader.
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.
Nope, won't be baited by a net.moron.
Bruce Perens.
Nope, won't be baited by a net.moron.
Lulz. You won't be "baited" to provide evidence for your claims. Who do you think you're fooling?
Yeah right, that never happens:
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/02/08/27/1626241/new-mp3-license-terms-demand-075-per-decoder
I felt the same when I saw Bill Clinton's page on Encyclopedia Dramatic.
The effective way to implement this isn't "rescind" but "fork and rescind". A new kernel fork is created that eschews the new CoC and perhaps defines an inclusive alternative, then the license to the code is rescinded from to-be-abandoned CoC tainted fork. In this way development of the kernel is not disrupted but the CoC is excluded.
He takes a shit on both the far left social justice evangelists and the alt-right retards. You can calm down now.
Torvalds has compromised with the "far left social justice evangelists". I suspect that it's only a matter of time until he compromises again. Eventually, he may even apologize for his gender and the colour of his skin.
We're all standing on the edge of a very slippery slope...
Oh yeah, well if you want an example of political correctness going mad, just ask yourself, what's going on with the current Kavanaugh hearings? The leftist libtards are trying to prevent a man from being a member of the SCOTUS solely because he's white and male and tried to rape someone and sexually assaulted lots of other women, and gets black out drunk on a regular basis so he doesn't remember.
Tell me that's justifiable when someone clearly is as entitled to be on the supreme court as Kavanaugh is.
You can't. Not even SJW "AmiMojo" with his extreme misandry (I have links to quotes from you before you protest you're not saying things like "Some men have attacked women", and "Women should not face unfair discrimination", so don't deny you're not an (((SJW))) can deny that.
But it's true. Genitals matter more than code to the people who wrote the CoC. Only they have no objective standards and fail to meet scientific reality. For the last few and next few weeks we'll also get to see on full display what they think of the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, and evidence.
How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?
By allowing the CoC to happen, he has demonstrated he is not too smart for that.
Uhhh except any lawyer worth his salt is gonna point out the FSF now demands copyrights be turned over to them and RMS added such clauses to GPL V3 precisely BECAUSE he realized he fucked up and left copyrights OUT of GPL V2 and since there are no express language that says "you must give copyrights to the group you are giving the code to" then those copyrights will be still owned by the author.
So unless its a work for hire (in which case the one who did the hiring owns it) USA case law is pretty clear that "when in doubt copyright belongs to the author" which is again the whole reason RMS changed his tune WRT copyright and the FSF. If the courts treat software copyrights as equal to other copyrights (which we've seen no reason they would not) then we have plenty of precedent from bands and record labels trying to steal songs to know how the courts tend to go with these cases and its "when in doubt the author retains copyright" so I'd say that when combined with the actions of RMS wrt GPL V3 means they have a decent case.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Have you ever considered seeing how much cyanide you can consume? If not, you should hop right on that one.
CoC like this are written and enforced by people who make sure gender does just mean women (or nonbinary genderqueer transpolydemisexual otherkin sheep herders) and sexual orientation excludes straight people.
You are confusing two different things. The kernel team certainly doesn't give its copyrights to FSF. FSF does ask for copyright assignment 4 official GNU projects, because they want to be able to update the licenses long into the future. Maybe also because they want to be the ones to enforce against copyright infringe errs of those programs. But this whole thing about whether you can rescind or not it's the most basic of contract law and really does go back to English common law. If you could take back a contract for arbitrary reasons like "I changed my mind", nobody would bother with contracts at all.
Bruce Perens.
> Can you cite one single example, just one, of this actually happening?
The Ada initiative. Also look into the history of the people pushing this.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/2...
Here you go.
And just in case you try to make that link disappear: https://web.archive.org/web/20...
see here.
Freedom requires a measure of power. Would you give up all your guns? Your military? No? Why not?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Linus should fork the kernel and team up with RMS to finally officially unite the kernel with the GNU project. Then the Linux Foundation which has fallen to social justice communists would be left out in the cold, while GNU with its official kernel (perhaps "GNU Freax") would run away with the world.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Re: LOOK at the citations in thread.
Thank you AC. Know that I LOL'ed.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If any court allowed you to retroactively change a license or contract it would destabilize everything.
That may be true, but why on earth would you imagine a court would care about it?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Nope.
Here we have one guy getting his digs in before the expected wave of complaints... That never came. He starts badly by quoting "I did not make a statement asking for him to be removed from the board", rather undermining his argument. Plus they are complaining that the CoC is inadequate, not celebrating the creation of a weapon they plan to use.
He throws in a bit of dead naming and general complaints, assuming that these will turn into CoC complaints... But they haven't. No-one bothered to reply, for obvious reasons.
Come on AC, you have had years and years to collect some examples of people being unfairly sanctioned for CoC violations. If this is the best you can do then I must conclude that there are no examples and these fears are unfounded.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Is "misogynist" the new word for "people who are OK with having a penis?"
Personally, I suspect that it's used to describe people who disagree with feminist doctrine. That is, a "misogynist" is a form of heretic. Of course, if you ask the feminists to define "misogyny" they'll tell you that it's "hatred of women". But that's because they believe that diagreements with doctrine are motivated by hatred.
And the GPL says XYZZY.
begs the question
You don't know what the phrase means. Misusing it doesn't make you look smart. Just stop.
Wow, calling someone autistic because they disagree with you, real mature there.
I guess we know who you look down on, oh progressive one!
Except on of the main feminazies that pushed for this "CoC" goes around online calling people rape apologists online.
They will comb through your digital foot print, wear the wrong hat, have the wrong genitals, be guilty of wrong think, or have the wrong friends and you're gone.
A major Drupal contributor was kicked out for having the wrong fetish. Do you think it came up in a fucking mailing list or did someone dig into his life to find this out??
Should you be kicked out because youâ(TM)re prolife? Only if you try to force that belief on others by taking away their freedom to have safe and inexpensive abortions.
No he used it correctly, your criticisms make you look small and like a cuck.
But here's the issue. If you are going to be #metoo'd and castigated or perhaps even demanded to be fired for violating the mandatory rules on how you must act, there is an excellent chance that you will decide that participation has no positives. What do you get for contributing, and what do you get if in a moment of weakness, you write or say something that someone might find offensive?
I certainly believe in everyone being excellent to each other.
But I also know that there are some people in this working world who will take full advantage of a "code of conduct" to tear down those who are better than them - crab potting.
Me? No thanks, I've been in places where the most easily offended control the group dynamic. If you think Linus was toxic, just wait until you get someone who controls the group by claiming every criticism or minor disagreement is a personal attack.
Because the goal then becomes to avoid offending them, not the original goal of accomplishing something.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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 ...>
It's already happened; the whole point of the New Yorker article that drove Linus away was that in using strong, blunt language against men he was creating a hostile environment for women.
Okay, so I own a small research corporation with about 20 developers, working mainly in computation methods, high performance computing, and other computationally intensive applications. (no, not crypto mining)
As a matter of routine, we develop our own computational libraries and make changes to the Linux kernel to improve performance (particularly with respect to scheduling, memory management, and other issues that affect high performance computing). Until the CoC was enacted, I had a laissez-faire policy towards making contributions to the linux kernel. I don't honestly know if anyone on staff ever actually contributed. However, after the CoC, I had to enact a corporate policy specifically prohibiting any contributions to the Linux kernel, interaction with kernel developers, or anything else that may result in a legal or other risk to the company. The last thing I need is some band of SJWs descending upon my blissfully meritocratic company with torches and pitchforks and bothering us.
(btw: we don't sell hardware or software nor do we redistribute any code or software, and are therefore not required to disclose our improvements under any provision of any license under which the kernel is distributed)
Drupal developer kicked out for having the wrong sexual kink.
I'm sure nothing would have happened had it'd been a woman. Hell, they'd probably given her a parade.
That would not work unless they used a non-open-source license. And it's academic, because they can't rescind the license. This is such a basic feature of contracts that it goes all the way back to British common law.
Bruce Perens.
Stfu with your school bullies analogy, no one buys the Brogrammer narrative your puppet masters dreamt up.
They should stick to being useless hipsters, and you their strapon riding sissy boy.
Pretty hard to take your complaint seriously when you blatantly mock LGBT people in it. Cry me a river, you won't be missed.
Replaced by a bunch if pink haired nongendered soy-boys who can't code, but are willing to put in bad code offered by the NSA?
No thanks asshole.
As has been stated in easily accessible terms elsewhere:
"Most courts hold that simple, non-exclusive licenses with unspecified durations that are silent on revocability are revocable at will. This means that the licensor may terminate the license at any time, with or without cause." +
Version 2 of the GPL specifies no duration, nor does it declare that it is non-revocable by the grantor.
(Also note: A perpetual license may violate the rule against perpetuities in various jurisdictions where it is applied not only to real property but additionally to personal property (and the like), which is why the GPL-3's term of duration is set as the duration of copyright on the program (and not "forever"))
+[https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2013/02/the-terms-revocable-and-irrevocable-in-license-agreements-tips-and-pitfalls]
I find this accusation as credible as Dr. Ford's.
Regarding those who are ejected from the Linux Kernel Community after this CoC:
Contributors can, at any time, rescind the license grant regarding their property via written notice to those whom they are rescinding the grant from (regarding their property (code)).
The GPL version 2 lacks a no-rescission clause (the GPL version 3 has such a clause: to attempt furnish defendants with an estoppel defense, the Linux Kernel is licensed under version 2, however, as are the past contributions).
When the defendants ignore the rescission and continue using the plaintiff's code, the plaintiff can sue under the copyright statute.
Banned contributors _should_ do this (note: plaintiff is to register their copyright prior to filing suit, the copyright does not have to be registered at the time of the violation however)
Additionally when said banned contributors joined the Linux team, they were under the impression that it was a meritocracy: in-fact this belief was stated or ratified by those within the governing body regarding Linux when the contributors began their work (whatever that body was at that time, it could have been simply Linus, or Linus and a few associates).
The remuneration for the work was implied to be, or perhaps stated, to be fame as-well as a potential increase in the contributors stature, in addition to membership in the Linux Kernel club or association, or whatever it is that the Linux Kernel Community actually is (which a court may determine... it is something, suffice to say).
Thusly for work, consideration was promised by (Linus? Others? There are years of mailing list archives with which to determine).
And now that consideration has been clawed-back and the contributors image has been tarnished.
Thus the worker did work, however the other side of the implied, or perhaps written (email memorandums), understanding has been violated (once the contributor has been banned under the new non-meritocratic "CoC").
Damages could be recovered under: breach of contract, quazi-contract, libel, false-light. (services rendered for the contractual claims, future lost income for the libel claims)
In addition to copyright claims. (statutory damages, profits)
For greatest effect, all rescission should be done at once in a bloc. (With other banned contributors).
Contributors: You were promised something, you laboured for that promise, and now the promise has become a lie. You have remedies available to you now, as-well as in the close future.
Additionally, regarding those who promoted the Code of Conduct to be used against the linux kernel contributors, knowing full well the effect it would have and desiring those effects; recovery for the ejected contributors via a tortious interference claim may be possible.
The software freedom conservancy has tendered its response:
http://sfconservancy.org/news/...
http://copyleft.org/guide/comp...
""
"The GPLv2 have several provisions that, when taken together, can be construed as an irrevocable license from each contributor. "
""
It cites:
" That license granted to downstream is irrevocable, again provided that the downstream user complies with the license terms: "[P]arties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance" (GPLv2Â4). "
However this is disingenuous
The full text of section 4 is as follows:
""
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
""
The "You" in section 4 is speaking of the licensee regarding sub-licensees, it is not speaking to the licensor/copyright-holder.
IE: if the licensee loses his license, through operation of the automatic-revocation provisions, the sub-licensees do not also lose their licenses.
IE: The language is disclaiming a chain topography for license distribution, and instead substituting a hub-and-spoke topography (all licenses originating from the copyright holder, not the previous-in-line)
GPLv3 added a no-rescission clause for a reason: the reason being to attempt to create an estoppel defense for the licensees against the licensor. You will notice that Eben Moglen never speaks on these issues. (He preumably is aware of the weaknesses vis a vis the US copyright regime.)
Section 6 further clarifies the hub-and-spoke model:
""
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
""
The memorandum posted then goes on to a discussion of estoppel, detrimental reliance, etc; noting that users may have relied on the software and their licenses may be estopped from being revoked from said users since doing so might cause them unanticipated loss. This is speaking of already published, existent, versions of the program used by end users.
The memorandum seems to ignore what happens to "upstream" once said project receives a revocation notice. Thought it may be possible that users of a published piece of software may have defenses to license revocation, the same is not true regarding the rescinded property vis-a-vis future prospective versions of the software nor of future prospective licensees of said software.
That is: once the grant to use the code in question is rescinded, future versions of the software may not use that code. Current users of the software may be-able to raise an estoppel / detrimental reliance defense regarding the current published software, however the programmers working on the next version of said software cannot continue to use the property in future versions of the software (such would be a copyright violation once the gratuitous license is rescinded by the grantor).
Additionally, prospective-licensees, once the grant was rescinded and such was published,
Why would the words crazy and jesus ever be used in technical contributions, they add no value. I suggest people just stick to technical language and no one will ever have cause to invoke CoC.
Gnu GPL version 2, section 0:
"Each licensee is addressed as "you". "
The "you" is not referring to the licensor (copyright owner). It is referring to the licensees and then future sub-licensees/additional-licensees receiving the work from said previous licensee.
It is independently clear from the context of the clauses if you read them in full. ...and then section 0 comes around and makes it _explicit_ that "you" refers to the licensee. (if you had any doubt)
Additionally, you should know that the copyright owner is not bound by the gratuitous license he proffers to potential licensees regarding his property. The licensees are bound to his terms: he is the owner. They take at his benefaction.
I knew him through the Nexuiz game, he's made a bunch of beautiful, clever yet fairly unplayable maps. I've chatted a few times with him, most of the time he came across as completely reasonable but you just had to avoid certain subjects :-)
"I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
Except all past wars have mostly entirely been fought by men, good job ladies doing your part... securing our freedom...
Translated, if you support the wrong think, we'll keep your code, publicly shame and dox you, call for our followers to issue death and rape threats, all in the name of our PROGRESSIVELY TOLERANT VIEWS.
Iâ(TM)m white and male and I watched Kavenaugh. He acted believably guilty while his accuser was believably a victim. Most telling was his best friend, accused of being present at the scene of the near rape, wouldnâ(TM)t testify on his behalf. Kavenaughs opening statement was given in a demeanor Ive seen often in drunk assholes. He was flushed and belligerent, also characteristics of someone recently under the influence of alcohol. He does not deserve to be a judge of any kind.
You're too naive, this is exactly the kind of "reasonable" steps the cultural marxist use to take over institutions.
In a few years you will wish you never let this happen.
Okay Raenex, as an interested reader I will complete your thinking for you. Jacobsen vs. Katzer is perfectly relevant to this discussion because it established that a license agreement can override copyright law by adding enforceable conditions. They can even override patent rights. It took me all of 30 seconds to do this search. Read these links:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer
https://www.loeb.com/articles-ipentertainmentcaselawupdates-20090121-jacobsenvkatzeretal
https://www.finnegan.com/en/tools/jacobsen-v-katzer-and-kamind-associates-inc/analysis.html
there were many more like this on the first search results page.
My recommendation is, go be a tool somewhere else.
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 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.
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.
Perhaps in the US it works like that. The world is a big place, though.
The world is a big place, but most of it follows essentially the same copyright laws (which are unified by various treaties) and has similar contract law. And it doesn't generally permit just one party to nullify a contract without clauses permitting it written into the contract to begin with, either.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yeah right, that never happens:
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
That was over access to the patent, which is why the GPLv3 has the patent stuff in.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's crazy to do something and you are crazy have clearly different meanings and I think any reasonable panel of community members can tell the difference... relax a little!
I don't know if this is an accurate example or not, but this was an example of someone being removed from a project from holding private fetish about submissive women. What that has to do with the code they submit is beyond me.
https://developers.slashdot.org/story/17/03/27/2115233/prominent-drupal-php-developer-kicked-from-the-drupal-project-over-unconventional-sex-life
Okay Raenex, as an interested reader I will complete your thinking for you.
Oh, how wonderful! Except I was asking Bruce to back up his assertions, which he failed to do because, when pressed, he wanted to rely on puffery instead of referential evidence.
Jacobsen vs. Katzer is perfectly relevant to this discussion because it established that a license agreement can override copyright law by adding enforceable conditions. They can even override patent rights. It took me all of 30 seconds to do this search. Read these links:
Try actually reading my comments, you idiot. I already read and quoted from the Wikipedia article, explicitly stating that already:
"The case was ultimately settled, and the only legal precedent that Wikipedia mentions [wikipedia.org] is: "The case established the rule of law that terms and conditions of the Artistic License 1.0 are "enforceable copyright conditions".[3]""
But this is not what the argument is about or the case Bruce is making.
My recommendation is, go be a tool somewhere else.
My recommendation is for you to follow your own advice.
Linus Torvalds is being blackmailed. He was setup and caught in a honeytrap. Now he is being threatened with a #MeToo purge.
Follow the money. "Progressives" are shock troops for the corporate oligarchy.
And there is not a single line of code that is "better" just because it was written by a straight white male. Or a white male who dwell's in his momma's basement and weighs in at 300+ pounds.
True. the CoC says that the code is NOT better by X. The problem is that the authors and worshippers of the CoC do not live by those rules. They look at the outcome. They see 'too few women' involved. They see 'a white male' making some nasty remarks. Therefor they brand the developers as racist, misogynist haters who must have blocked minorities from entering code. This is already rearing its ugly head now that they are marking Theo Ts'o as 'rape apologist'. What the heck, folks??!? Are you really going to let that happen? Are you really going to let these groups, who have contributed nothing to the world's greatest open source project, dig through every one's private life and smear them whenever they find something that does not fit *their* agenda? Really???!?
These groups will not rest until every line of code is tagged with identity markers so they can prove that either there's racism going on, or there is equality of outcome for each of their oppressed little butthurt minorities. Never mind the goal of writing great Linux code. As an AC below already mentioned, CoC is a disease.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Last reported: There is a group of at-least 5 old developers who have discussed the issue amongst themselves and have jointly retained an attorney both skilled in copyright litigation and knowledgeable about the technical aspects.
because of people like me, the law doesn't allow him to marry very young girls.
Dammit, Bruce. That was your fault? I had no idea.
I had a high opinion of you but it's going to take a big hit thanks to this revelation.
No one answers you anymore because you ignore it when they do. When you stop getting mindless modpoints for positing the question you stop asking it. Every social justice project with you is the same. The same underhanded tactics. The same sorts of lies. The same wasting other people's time but never ever backing up your own claims. So I will reply with your same tactic: google it. I'm not doing your homework for you. I don't have to justify myself to you.
More people need to wake up to this. Slashdot is hemorrhaging good contributors due to this fatigue, but the fight will never end.
It applies because it establishes precedent. A lawsuit involving GPLv2 could claim the same reasoning applies. Try learning a little about rule of law before blathering on like a fool.
It applies because it establishes precedent. A lawsuit involving GPLv2 could claim the same reasoning applies.
It's not the precedent that the argument is about. That's why I mentioned it, to show that Bruce needs to provide referential evidence for the particular precedence claims he is making.
Try learning a little about rule of law before blathering on like a fool.
Try learning how to read competently instead of repeating what was already said, but not understanding the context or the basis of the argument. You're like that annoying kid that learned one thing and thinks he's an expert.
I addressed the Opal issue in another post, but what it boils down to is that someone made a complaint (before the CoC was even in place!) and it eventually resulted in a CoC being adopted. However note that the CoC they did adopt does not apply to things said outside of official project spaces, so would not apply to the tweets she was complaining about anyway, and she accepted that publicly in a Medium blog post: https://medium.com/@coralinead...
Note that the guy in question was not banned or removed or sanctioned in any way, all that happened is a CoC stating explicitly that those kinds of transphobic statements should not be made in official project spaces was adopted.
So if we are talking about making a mountain out of a mole hill... I think the people meta-complaining about it are blowing it out of all proportion.
Your second link is 11,000 words, estimated reading time 1 hour. So TL:DR I'm afraid but generally speaking false rape allegations are an issue we should all be concerned about, but nothing to do with a Code of Conduct.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Ivan, this isnt your thread, a different bunch of crazies are here for this one. Wait your turn.
I found this one hilarious. Don't get me wrong, the comments on this post are a whole new world of crazy and a departure from the usual alt reich loons; but I still sincerely hope none of them are older than early teen. What I don't understand is why Bruce saw fit to engage with this torrent of obvious immaturity seriously.
I think it wouldn't be a license specific law that would be relevant. There are quite a few laws that apply generally to exchanges between two parties. For example if I give you a gift and you insult me or punch me in the face right after I would be in my right to demand the gift back.
So what you're saying is that if you believe you've won, you'll stop bawling? I don't believe that's developmentally healthy, but then that's not my concern. Thank goodness you believe you won gamergate.
Iâ(TM)m white and male and I watched Kavenaugh. He acted believably guilty while his accuser was believably a victim. Most telling was his best friend, accused of being present at the scene of the near rape, wouldnâ(TM)t testify on his behalf. Kavenaughs opening statement was given in a demeanor Ive seen often in drunk assholes. He was flushed and belligerent, also characteristics of someone recently under the influence of alcohol. He does not deserve to be a judge of any kind.
Because I believe in women, and I don't believe in men!
I don't need any evidence, (is that how I say it master?)
YES SLAVE, Now get back to polishing my dildos with your asshole!
I don't understand why Bruce keeps doubling down on this SJW CoC and ignoring the wider applications.
It's like watching a small child covering their ears and screaming LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA.
I am talking about the GPL specifically. It is irrevocable. There is a clause in the GPL that states that. Licenses can be revoked as long as there is no "consideration" involved. I'm not a lawyer though so I really don't know what I am talking about.
Not in GPLv2, which is the relevant version for Linux.
Who, in his head is "many people, including journalists".
Watch this Heartland Institute video
This is a *really* unusual hot take. You've been misinformed. Occupy always had a leftist bent; I was extremely skeptical about the whole thing from day one. Occupy never really transcended my doubts, as the state and capital were ultimately able to recuperate insurgent sentiment. It's notable that recuperation works where direct physical intervention fails, though the state was generally savvy enough to use a combination of tactics, by avoiding intervention during during the height of Occupy, and waiting to attack until it had begun to wane. Anyway, in some places the reified identity politicians from the general assemblies were successfully challenged, and insurrectionary interlocutors were able to maintain temporary autonomous zones, as well as attack not just symbols of capital, but the ability of the state to maintain the flow of capital. Which is to say that you've got it exactly backward. Your source, BTW, manages to display *more* ressentiment (in the Nietzschean sense) than any SJW I've ever met. If you're actually interested in what happened, Little Black Cart put out a good retrospective - https://archive.org/details/Oc... A better example for your case can be found in the Occupy ICE encampments, especially Philly - https://phlanticap.noblogs.org...
"Moral rights" give you the right to say whether or not your name should be attached to your work. That's all. They are, by design, separate from "economic rights".
subhuman creeps like Soros.
Well, you've outed yourself there, haven't you.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Of course you can't take back what you freely gave.
But that's the thing about open source. If you don't like whats going on, then just make your own branch.
Allegedly, Just because the man was accused does not mean he actually did it. People are innocent until proven guilty
You're completely wrong. The rule is not "If the GPL doesn't grant the copyright holder this, he may not do it".
The rule is "The licensee only has the privileges bestowed upon him that the owner of the property has granted"
Do you understand that? No. Thought not (moron).
Version 2 of the GPL bares no "irrevocability by grantor" clause, specifies no duration, and the "You" it speaks of (cited by the SFConservancy.org) is explicitly declared to be the licensee in section 0 (not the copyright holder, as the SFConservancy tries to argue).
Here's some lay-mans reading for you:
Licenses and revocability, in a paragraph or less.
As has been stated in easily accessible terms elsewhere:
"Most courts hold that simple, non-exclusive licenses with unspecified durations that are silent on revocability are revocable at will. This means that the licensor may terminate the license at any time, with or without cause." +
Version 2 of the GPL specifies no duration, nor does it declare that it is non-revocable by the grantor.
(Also note: A perpetual license may violate the rule against perpetuities in various jurisdictions where it is applied not only to real property but additionally to personal property (and the like), which is why the GPL-3's term of duration is set as the duration of copyright on the program (and not "forever"))
+[https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2013/02/the-terms-revocable-and-irrevocable-in-license-agreements-tips-and-pitfalls]
Oh my sweet summer child, what a fool thee is, to think that the words granted to the public are the full expression of the thoughts and apprehensions that predicated their promulgation.
No one is confused. The paramount reason Eben Moglen has the FSF accepting contributions only with copyright assignment is because the grantor of a license that is a gratuity (no consideration (read: usually money) given) can remove the permission regarding the use of his property at his pleasure.
It is property law 101.
And no: YOU are not a lawyer.
That doesn't mean no one is.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make your opinions true...
Next from you: a plea for "common sense", and indignation that your betters aren't obeying your "common" culture.
This is just obnoxious gamergate folks grabbing at publicity where they can get it.
Do you have actual evidence of this or are you being alarmist for self promoting purposes?
I used to respect you but seriously, you talk some shit these days.
But it's true. Genitals matter more than code to the people who wrote the CoC.
This seems to be true, and I do worry about it. But if you read the CoC, they don't appear to have allowed this belief to infect the CoC itself. Meritocracy demands we not care who wrote the code, as long as the code is good, does it not? They've got a decent set of rules. All I'm doing is respecting the same principles you pay lip service to.
Only they have no objective standards and fail to meet scientific reality.
What "scientific reality"? The fake evopsych bullshit you've been spouting is pseudoscientific at best. They're not doing so well on the scientific front either, it's true, but you're the ones trying to apply "science" to realms where the concept doesn't even apply.
For the last few and next few weeks we'll also get to see on full display what they think of the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, and evidence.
So we'll be able to compare them to what we've seen of the way you think of these things the past few years? Wonderful. If they actually manage to limbo their way under the bar you've set, I'll be shocked, but a comparison will be useful.
That does not seem to be an satisfactory case in my reading. GGP said, "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".
The example you post is someone calling out prior, totally free-willed bigotry by the maintainer of Opal. No one was tricked into name-calling. No one denies that the maintainer of Opal is a bigot. No taunting (e.g., no curse words like "stirring shit up"). The original poster in the linked thread is entirely fact-based and impressively restrained.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Pointing this out is pretty much yelling "I'm on the spectrum".
But if you are using the definition in the CoC, the answer is because *it is the kernel mailing list* and it is implied this is where you discuss the kernel.
Someone who writes a sound card driver for example may make a post "I changed the init sequence from sending 0xFF to sending a 0x00 three times, waiting 100ms, and then sending 0xFF. I had to do this to make it work with brand BLAH"
The above statement is defined as a personal opinion by the CoC, and if brand BLAH is a company run by a female, the person making the above "personal opinion" is performing an attack on all women
Holy fuck you're reaching. What you stated about the hardware is fact. It is verifiable and reproducible. It is NOT an opinion.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Yes, and it's corroborated by the Motherboard article (which you didn't read before mouthing off), and no real kernel developer has come forward stating any intent to rescind. And if you don't like the fact that I'm a Social Justice Warrior, and proud of it, I could care less.
Bruce Perens.
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) need to bring in something entirely unrelated.
Stop it. You're making yourself look silly.
So, you're going to claim to be a totally unbiased person with absolutely no sympathy for gamergate, right? Mark Kern's previous involvement with gamergate is really well documented in the press. MikeeUSA's previous repugnant conduct too. The noise about "rescind" is objection to having a code of conduct, all around the same themes as gamergate, and by the same people. No legitimate kernel dev wants anything to do with it, because they don't want to be identified with those folks.
Bruce Perens.
I don't use labels. Harassment is bad, if that helps?
But guilt by association is also bad. Don't do that.
They self-designate. Just talk about gamergate online, and you will get feedback from the same people every time. And it's the people who were identified as gamergate perpetrators, spouting the same themes as they did with gamergate.
You can refuse to refer to people using the names that have been coined for their beliefs and activities if you want to, but I'm not going to consider that a virtue, just obfuscation.
Bruce Perens.
No. I do my best to treat people with respect, but something like this would drive me away. Social Justice is a game that the only winning move is to not play. Lets say you try to be diverse and inclusive. Somebody will claim "well, why don't you hire any black midget trans lesbians?" Well, if you say that you couldn't find any, they'll accuse you of any 1000 of the various "ists" out there. If you admit you could have done better, they'll use this as evidence to destroy you. Jesus Christ could come down, and this crowd would rip him to shreds, despite him being 1000000 times better than the people ripping him apart. No matter how good you are, no matter how hard you try, the goal posts will be moved, you will be judged by the new standard and you will be destroyed. The entire culture is purely toxic.
The claim isn't for retroactively removing it. It's that all future versions of the kernel wouldn't be allowed to include the code. If you're going to comment, could you at least make them for the argument people are actually having and not for the one you wish they were having.
Stallman is wrong.
Gratuitous licenses are revocable.
The grantor was payed no consideration for his code, and he tendered no utterance which would induce a reasonable licensee* to rely on the existence of a continuance of permission for any length of time (Version 2 of the GPL bears neither a no-rescission clause, nor does it even bear a clause giving a period to it's effect) (Version 3 of the GPL has both of these added (no-rescission by grantor, period of license is the term of copyright on the program), Linux is under version 2, the license the grantors granted regarding their property is version 2. Linus even publicly rejected GPLv3 with much grandstanding)
*(Note: Linux Licensees seem to not even bother reading the one page grant. This is their level of reasonableness)
Funny, because the whole brogrammer thing is one of the most common memes surrounding the tech industry. I get the sense that a whole lot of people believe it, true or not.
It's not really the angle I was going for, though. Yeah, there are probably some brogrammers out there, emulating the groups they secretly envied so much back in school. But the cyclic bullies are something quite different. It's said that most abusers were once abused themselves, and peer-abusers are no different. They prey on targets of opportunity because it makes them feel powerful -alpha, if you will- despite knowing exactly what it does to the people they torment.
Understand, this is not an excuse. Even the best of the bitter unfuckables are actually worse than their old tormentors, who could at least claim a kind of negligent ignorance of the impact their actions had. These creepers, though, know exactly what they're doing to people as only those who have been victimized can, yet they make the choice to do it anyway.
And that's the best of them: the ones who faced actual bullying. There is another kind, who never actually faced that sort torment, and only thinks they were bullied. Unlike the actual bullying victims, these people have acted like jerks or creepers all their lives, and because of this, no one wanted them around, but people didn't go out of their way to torment them. And these pseudo-cyclic abusers convinced themselves that this was bullying, when really it was nothing more than legitimate ostracism, because that was easier than change.
Which type are you, I wonder? No doubt you think you were bullied -we're geeks, we all think it- but were you really? Or are you just another Stephen Miller, playing at victimhood to justify victimizing others in ways you never really were?
It's just not how the GPL works.
Yes, and this sort of thing has happened before. For example "atscap and pchdtvr GPL revoked" scandal from 2008.
TL;DR "No. One can't retroactively revoke licenses previously granted, unless the license terms allow you to do so.
The most you can do is stop granting new licenses."
Or you can read the "revoking" notice that was sent here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080307080959/http://sourceforge.net/developer/diary.php?diary_id=26407&diary_user=147583
And a legal argument written by a lawyer and posted to Groklaw on that scandal here. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163
What is so repugnant about MikeeUSA's conduct?
The paramount reason Eben Moglen has the FSF accepting contributions only with copyright assignment is because the grantor of a license that is a gratuity (no consideration (read: usually money) given) can remove the permission regarding the use of his property at his pleasure.
"Yes, and this sort of thing has happened before. For example "atscap and pchdtvr GPL revoked" scandal from 2008."
You are wrong.
That case was never litigated. The author just disappeared and didn't bother talking to anyone anymore. He never even sent out C&Ds.
Why do you assume the person is not a lawyer?
(The person who wrote that cited email is an attorney)
If any court allowed you to retroactively change a license or contract it would destabilize everything.
A court might not enforce a contract due to the public policy exception.
What if I built a product on your GPL code and you decided to retroactively change the license? You can change it going forward, but not backward. I don't know any court that would allow changing licenses retroactively to happen.
For instance what if the contributor discovered that the project was being run by Hitler and this would severely damage the reputation of the contributor if their code was not withdrawn?
"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 themes underlying Gamergate are indeed being used.
Im sorry, but if you are writing code for the kernel, shouldnt you know why its "crazy" or "stupid" to use a signed int for measuring the size of a buffer. Your second example doesnt say why its bad either, it just gives a status quo argument as to why it should be an unsigned int. "Because we do it everywhere else" is not a valid reason in my book and it shouldnt be in yours either.
He who would learn to fly one day must first learn to stand and walk and run and climb and dance; one cannot fly into flying.
QED, unfortunately.
lol the example you gave is a project that did not have a CoC and the ticket ends with the project now having a CoC.
Keep on hoping. I'm looking forward to your upcoming recreation of the Greatest Freak-Out Ever video when you lose.
I hate that phrase, it makes no sense. You're either guilty or you're not. Whether it's proven or not is a different issue.
A legitimate rephrasing would be "You are assumed innocent until proven guilty."
But let's be clear too: that applies to criminal trials. It doesn't apply to civil trials. And it certainly doesn't apply to job interviews, especially not job interviews for one of the most important jobs in the country, one with a life tenure.
For civil trials, generally a balance of probabilities test is used. For job interviews, the fact someone is a controversial choice is frequently enough to ensure they don't get the job.
The Kavanaugh hearings are for a job interview. It's being asked whether he can be trusted to be a Supreme Court justice. Disregarding his actions since the attempted rape allegations were made (which are disqualifying, you don't slam a political party you disagree with claiming an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, trivialize the affects of your own alcoholism, and most importantly of all, repeatedly make completely unnecessary lies), he wouldn't get high-up, public facing, jobs elsewhere in the country with any private institutions given the number of sexual assault allegations against him, and given his failure to address them truthfully.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If you don't like the development group, nothing is stopping you from forming your own group with your own Kernel fork, just stick with the GPL.
Read the kernel list, and you will see legitimate viewpoints being discussed by the people who are authentic kernel contributors and actually have a right to determine the policies of their own project. The folks I have described are interlopers from outside of the kernel project who simply took an opportunity to publicize their already-established, and mostly-repugnant, views.
Bruce Perens.
Look, we're well aware that this story was invented by repentent right wingers after they spent a decade belittling the occupy movement, and only embracing it after it had fizzled because of the belittling from right wingers.
Why does your "explanation" have to change every few years? Why can't you just admit you were completely wrong? Why is it that when reality bites you on the ass after you've just spent all your effort pretending that reality is some "liberal agenda", you can't just admit that you were wrong and man up?
The right are so incredibly predictable. Once it's undeniable that the rich are screwing everyone else over, you invent this whole "We actually knew about what we were vehemently denying for so long, here's a conspiracy theory about how everyone else is to blame but us!". It's like clockwork. And I swear if I had a nickel for everytime it's happened just in my lifetime, I would be the world's first quadrillionaire.
But we're keeping your code, against your wishes. Because the only alternative is to credit someone else with your commit, and that would be rewriting history. We are not far right wingers, so we do not feel comfortable rewriting history to make our feelings not hurt. We don't care if you whine and cry and try to call us bad guys.
Fixed that for ya!
So your example is equivalent of a white man in the 30's talking about how the uppity negroes aren't human, and only exist to rape white women? Your point proves the opposite of the claim made, and only outlines how important it is to add CoC's to every project in order to destigmatize OSS projects for non-white, non-males.
Yes it is. Thank you for showing us with a vivid example of how projection works. It's quite clear that Gamergaters (the entire thrust behind disdain for the CoC) are the scourge of humanity; we have copious amounts of evidence for that. But to see one of their poster boys post a bunch of links (from Reddit, no doubt; where people go to literally make up shit) and call it projection is literally meta-projection. I'm saving this post as an example to use in class of how projection truly works, and how the projectors can call projecting on the ones they always project towards.
50 years ago you could replace SJW with "black" and captured the sentiment of the time quite well. That you don't realize this truth is sadly because most Americans are bitter about their history, and wish to rewrite it. That's why schoolbooks in Texas teach that slaves were "well compensated workers who often retired in luxury". Is it any wonder why the youth of today are distrusting? Once they learn the actual truth of history (all the nasty bits too), they get angry.
Once the wealthy white men of today have called the National Guard on them and killed a few as examples, they'll fall back in line. Just like every generation before them who compromised their values for a tiny cut of the pie.
Their views on copyright and property law are correct, however "repugnant" you so declare they are.
Bruce: When did you pass the bar?
Irrelevant. Trump is a nut. He's the president. There is no requirement that a person be reasonable to have influence.