linux-kernel - Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.

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: <CAMjeLr_cx5+96NGedcYB-MjugA53_j+tksP0Na8W9GY-PAhoZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Sep 2018 14:34:07 -0500
From:   "\\0xDynamite" <dreamingforward@...il.com>
To:     Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>
Cc:     "jonsmirl@...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>
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.

>>>> So, is code a *published* item?  Most of the public can't read it.
>>>
>>> I cannot read (or understand) neither Russian nor Chinese nor almost any
>>> natural (let alone dead) languages of the world. I'm pretty sure that
>>> I'm not the only one;-)
>>> Does that make Russian literature non-public? I don't think so ...
>>
>> You confuse the issue.  My definition included "intended for the
>> public".  But it isn't clear that open source code is intended for the
>> public -- it is intended for those who code or wish to.

> Well, then I have to repeat myself: Signed-off source code (in form of
> patches) in a well-known programming language for a (nowadays)
> well-known GPLv2 licensed project mailed on "everyone can subscribe"
> mailinglists, (thus) to be found in several $SEARCH_ENGINE-indexed
> mailinglist archives, if accepted to be found in lots of publicly
> accessible git repos can be not intended to be published?

You did it again.  You changed words.  I said intended for the public,
and you ended your sentence with "intended to be published".

Like it or not, both the law and English grammar have ambiguities.
People put up with them because they share a common intuition (in a
lot of cases) of what each other means.

If you share a birthday card with your personal love note inscribed
and the birthday girl sends it around to everyone at the party, have
you been violated?  She might argue:  how did you expect it to remain
private if you knew there were several people invited to the birthday
party?

> I wonder what else must happen.

Wonder no more.

Mark