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Richard Stallman Says Linux Code Contributions Can't Be Rescinded (itwire.com)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."
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.
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.
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
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.
I think the biggest problem is the "you used this language previously on this obscure phpbb forum so we banned you from contributing"
That kind of claim has occurred before. The largest scale of claims were those by SCO, which claimed that core code to Linux was copied from SysV UNIX, for which they owned the copyrights. There were enormous difficulties with their claimss, which were well analyzed at https://www.groklaw.net./ It turned out that they refused to detail which code was copied, samples that they claimed were copied were from BSD UNIX and copied with permission, and SCO had been contributing to the UNIX kernel themselves. It also turned out they didn't own SysV UNIX, that was still owned by Novell, and SCO had not been paying their licensing fees.
If SCO had copied in any of the SysV code, or if anyone else had, the Linux developers would have had to negotiate that with Novell, the owners of SysV UNIX. Since Novell was suing SCO for their fraudulent lawsuits against the Linux community, I think there would have been no licensing difficulty for modest contributions.
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.
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
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)
There will probably be a little in the beginning. They'll be sorted out pretty quickly.
Previous "code of conduct" warriors infestations have never ended well. It either leads to things like the groups/activities they contaminate going away; like how TAM (and other atheist groups) was killed because of the Atheism+ bullshit, or it just becomes a joyless pit of festering shit that continues to exist only because it has enough of a grip on society that it can't go away.
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.