linux-kernel - Re: kernel.org status: establishing a PGP web of trust

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <27959.1317908661@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:44:21 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel.org status: establishing a PGP web of trust

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:50:08 EDT, Arnaud Lacombe said:

> Just thinking about it, but even if lawyers have been involved, this
> has been done, unless error of my part, behind closed doors, without
> any public records, so I'd tempted to ask "who paid those lawyers?",
> "what was the qualification of those lawyers?", "what was the interest
> of those lawyers?" and "what was the interest of those who paid the
> lawyers?".

At least in the US, the answer to "what was the interest of those lawyers?" is
almost always "to represent the interests of their clients in a legally ethical
manner".  Intentional disregard for the client's interests can and does get you
disbarred.  Any lawyer who stuck in a clause that was contrary to the client's
interest would also be doing so against their own interest - lawyers can get
sued for malpractice or (as noted) even disbarrment.  So I don't think you need
to worry about some lawyer with a pro-Microsoft agenda secretly sticking in a
hidden phrase that's actually against Linux's interest. (In particular, it's
*really* hard to hide detrimental language in something as short and heavily
read as the Developer's Certificate of Origin).

And if you *do* worry about that, you better also question whether the
people supplying tin foil are part of the conspiracy too.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped