Message-ID: <87a7n165h6.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date:   Fri, 26 Oct 2018 09:12:21 +1100
From:   NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>
To:     esr@...rsus.com, "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, 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.

On Thu, Oct 25 2018, Eric S. Raymond wrote:

> 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.

I think you are blurring two groups here.
Ted describes "anti-CoC dissidents" as people who are advancing an
argument about rescinding their license.  This is a smaller groups than
the "ant-CoC camp" who don't really like the CoC.  I suspect is it is a
much smaller group when restricting to actual copyright holders.

I am against the CoC as it stands, but rescinding any license is such an
enormous over-reaction, I find the concept laughable.

NeilBrown


>
> 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.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists