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: <CACqU3MVyi1jyK2VDkb_hKH6=Q21y6mFYdsmh+gE5Py6dU_iARQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:43:01 -0400
From:	Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
To:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
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

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 9:44 AM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:
> 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.
>
I do not particularly worry about any of the question I wrote, I was
merely raising unknown, from some excerpt of
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20101227144336645.

 - Arnaud
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/