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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 02:24:33 +0000 From: gratuitouslicensesarerevocable@...chan.it To: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at> Cc: xDynamite <dreamingforward@...il.com>, jonsmirl@...il.com, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, fche@...hat.com, riel@...riel.com, ec429@...tab.net, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it. In your employment contract there exists a provision where you sign over your rights to any and all intellectual property, patents, copyrights developed during your term of employment. Said clause makes it clear that what you've furnished is a work-for-hire and owned by the company or the entity you have contracted with. It should be clear why that is not the case with regards to kernel contributions by third parties. Unlike the FSF etc, Linus never required nor sought copyright assignments: thus you still own your code. You were not paid valuable consideration by the licensees for the code. There exists no interest to bind your hand. You never even suggested to said licensees that you would forfeit your right to revoke. Furthermore, they were incapable of relying on said in-existent utterances. You may revoke at your pleasure. And they shall be bound by the will of your countenance. On 2018-09-24 19:45, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > BTW you cannot do that at your workplace either because in all sane > software development companies you cease all (transferable) rights of > your written to the company paying you (and the rest is usually not > enough to get anything revoked). > > I don't see why that should be any different with GPLv2 patches for the > Kernel sent to public mailinglists with the intent of inclusion. > > Please get back to the issue and circumstances at hand and do not try > to > divert people with "not intended for the public" or "semi-public" or > any > other off-topic stuff which is clearly not the case here. > Or - even better - shut up, unsubscribe and go away, thank you. > > MfG, > Bernd, NAL but I talked to a lot of them;-) > > PS: Sorry for troll feeding:-(
Powered by blists - more mailing lists