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Richard Stallman Says Linux Code Contributions Can't Be Rescinded (itwire.com)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."
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.
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.
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.
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 don't think an individual (or group) can actually pull the license for GPL software that is out in the wild. They can change the license for the software in their procession and release it under different terms but the original is still GPL.
So foo v1 is GPL and later the author releases foo v2 under the MINE license, v1 is still GPL and can be forked. The actual name may be protected under trademark law so the v2 of the GPL fork may have to be bar v2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
What’s being discussed again? Kicking out and ostracizing someone and keeping their contributed code, against their wishes? You guys really think that's a moral or ethical thing to do?
The GPL was explicitly designed in response to James Gosling rescinding his contributions against previous promises for financial gain, to avoid such crap behavior in future. Stallman had to rewrite major parts of Emacs because of Gosling's fuckheadery. So yes, the GPL has been designed in a manner where people cannot both build on existing code and withdraw their contributions after the fact. A main point of the GPL is to remove leverage for secondary contributors having second thoughts. That's something you accept when contributing to an existing project. That's what "contributing" means.
Insightful? Really mods? While you are throwing insults you MIGHT want to read the festering SJW shitshow they are trying to shove on Linux, which is racist and sexist as fuck with an explicit stated goal to get rid of meritoracy and instead base contributions on how high you rank in the Oppression Olympics...yeah because developing extremely complex kernel code should be based on what your skin color is and whether you are a hufflepuff (no shit the one heading this bunch of whack-a-doodles calls herself a hufflepuff) not whether you can ACTUALLY WRITE GOOD FUCKING CODE.
And ya wonder why more and more are looking at the SJW movement and the regressives and going "Yeah can't stand the right....but at least they aren't batshit like these nutters, think I'll switch". I mean for fucks sake who gives a single flying flipping fuck (other than regressives because ALL they care about is being racist sexist fucks) what color someone writing KERNEL CODE is? Torvalds has certainly never given a shit, he treats ALL who act like morons as moronic no matter what color they were and only gave a shit about the quality of the code, not about whether they are a "protected class" they needed to be coddled and infantilized (cuz never forget the regressives are all about soft bigotry of low expectations) because that is the nice thing about meritoracy, cream rises to the top, shit gets flushed like it should.
Be be sure to screaming "INCELS" and "Muh FEE FEES!" at the top of your lungs and call everyone an "IST!", because I'm sure designing an OS based on promoting skin color and how many adjectives one can add to their choices in who to fuck will make a really quality product...yeah and my mama was a Kaiju and my name is Godzilla.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.