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]

Date:   Thu, 25 Oct 2018 18:38:13 -0400
From:   "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@...rsus.com>
To:     NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>
Cc:     "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.

NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>:
> 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.

You may be right that these are semi-distinct groups.  I don't think
the distinction makes a lot of difference to my argument, though.
Either way, (a) there's been a process failure by the leadership, and
(b) the threat of a massive legal disruption is real.

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

I'm...not sure I do.  I was going to agree with you that it's a
massive overreaction, but then a simple question occurred to me: what
else could *I* do if I thought I had a significant stake (I don't; my
kernel contributions are minor and old) and felt my interests were
damaged?

All this could have been avoided so easily. A felt need for a new Code
should not have been followed by the immediate imposition of one,
but by a public RFC process and consensus-building - a process in which
even those who lost arguments about the construction of the code could
know they had been heard.
-- 
		<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" (834 bytes)