linux-kernel - Re: The linux devs can rescind their license grant.

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: <20181025214123.GA2448@thyrsus.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:41:23 -0400
From:   "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@...rsus.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        visionsofalice@...chan.it,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, rms@....org,
        bruce@...ens.com, moglen@...umbia.edu, bkuhn@...onservancy.org,
        editor@....net, NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
        Mishi Choudhary <mishi@...ux.com>,
        linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The linux devs can rescind their license grant.

Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@....edu>:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 03:39:01PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Under Jacobsen vs. Katzer (535 f 3d 1373 fed cir 2008) authors of
> > GPLed software have a specific right to relief (including injunctive
> > relief) against misappropriation of their software. That ruling (which
> > was the case of first impression on the binding status of the GPL)
> > reputational damage is *specifically* recognized as grounds for relief.
> 
> I've read the legal briefs, and I'm pretty sure they don't say what
> you are claiming they say.  Yes, I'm not a lawyer --- but that's OK
> --- neither are you.

How much are you willing to gamble on not being wrong?

> The *vast* majority of the "anti-CoC dissidents" who have been
> advancing this argument, have, as near as I can tell, little or no
> copyright ownership in the kernel.

I do not have any facts with which to dispute this specific claim.
However, I do notice that a significant number of long-time
contributors have put themselves in the anti-CoC camp. I note Al Viro
as a recent example.

Even supposing you are right about most of the anti-Coc people being
outsiders, a tiny minority of people with a genuine IP stake could do a
lot of damage.  I ask again: how much are you willing to gamble on not
being wrong?

I definitely do not want to see the kind of explosion we could witness.
I think you are making it more likely rather than less by appearing
high-handed and dismissive.   Because, whatever the merits of the
CoC itself, there has been a process failure here.  It doesn't look
good to be defending that failure.

A change like the CoC adoption was not a good thing to do without
proper public notice, discussion, and consensus-building *beforehand*.
This was an unforced error on the part of the leadership group;
please, *please* don't compound it by digging in around the error.  Do
you really think you're going to win hearts and minds among insider
dissidents - people with a genuine stake - by dismissing the
opposition as a troll job?

Instead of declaiming about "trolls", how about we fix the process
failure instead?
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.