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Richard Stallman Says Linux Code Contributions Can't Be Rescinded (itwire.com)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.
I'm offended by Lennart Poettering and believe his systemd code should be rescinded immediately in violation of fundamental philosophical reasons.
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.
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"
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.
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. "
400 years of legal history, since the first copyright act in 1710, disagree with you. At a minimum, courts can and will force you to cease sharing that intellectual property.
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.
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/
In what science-fictional alternate universe would I have not read the GPL? Really.
When you parse licenses, you have to be conscious that they do not exist in a vacuum. They rest upon the entire body of law and precedent going back, in the US case, to British Common Law (yes, courts still cite it here). An important part of all of this law is that when you make a grant, it remains a grant unless the terms of the law or the grant itself allow you to take it back. And generally, they do not. For one thing, the entire structure of business based upon contracts would fail if you had the right to rescind them any time you changed your mind.
So, it does not matter if GPL2 doesn't say it does not terminate, it does matter that the text does not provide any means other than violation of the terms for it to terminate.
Bruce Perens.
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've been thinking about this and trying to find a reasonable analogy. Best I can come up with is this:
Habitat for Humanity (the folks who build homes for poor people).. When you work with HfH, you donate your time, skill, and labor. When you donate code to the Linux kernel, you are donating your time, skill, and labor.
Now, assume one day one of the HfH guys comes to the jobsite and launches into a rant about xyz.. We don't have to specify what xyz is, only that it's something horribly offensive...
Said person is kicked off the job site and asked to never return to HfH... Does he have the right to expect that all of the houses he helped to build will be pulled down?
Why or why not?
He's gone but someone is still benefiting from his work.
Where do you set the bar for demanding that your time, skill, and labor be returned to you?
I haven't invested a whole bunch of time in this as it doesn't directly concern me (I am not a kernel contributor or a HfH person), but from what I can tell, the courts would disagree with the notion of "taking your toys and going home".
Code contributed to the kernel certainly fits the idea of a "donation". As far as I know, nobody is paid for their contributions (they might be paid to work on the kernel by a third party, but Linus isn't cutting any checks). From what I can deduce, case law has decided that gifts are nonrescindable unless you can show fraud, coercion, or that you were "strongly influenced in an unfair manner".
Furthermore, in both situations we have donations of time, labor, and skill.. Nothing "tangible"..i.e. nobody is keeping something "physical" that is going to deprive you of "x"
I don't believe, personally, that it would be immoral or unethical to keep the code and kick the person out. When the code was contributed both the donator and donee were acting in good faith.
If the situation changes and the parties part ways, then that's the end of their association, but you don't get to rewrite history and time and say "I want my shit back".
Physics declares you cannot get your time, labor, or skill back (entropy increases) so demanding that your gifts be ripped from the code tree won't make anyone "whole" even if you could show some unfairness (short of fraud).