netdev - Re: [PATCH] Revert "MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements."

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: <80c25e27-0d90-428d-b206-6252d411daaa@typeblog.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:28:35 -0400
From: Peter Cai <peter@...eblog.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tor Vic <torvic9@...lbox.org>, Kexy Biscuit <kexybiscuit@...c.io>,
 jeffbai@...c.io, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, wangyuli@...ontech.com,
 aospan@...up.ru, conor.dooley@...rochip.com, ddrokosov@...rdevices.ru,
 dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, dushistov@...l.ru, fancer.lancer@...il.com,
 geert@...ux-m68k.org, hoan@...amperecomputing.com, ink@...assic.park.msu.ru,
 linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org,
 mattst88@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, nikita@...n.ru,
 ntb@...ts.linux.dev, patches@...ts.linux.dev, richard.henderson@...aro.org,
 s.shtylyov@....ru, serjk@...up.ru, shc_work@...l.ru,
 tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, v.georgiev@...rotek.ru,
 wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com, xeb@...l.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various
 compliance requirements."

> I'm also not going to start discussing legal issues with random
> internet people who I seriously suspect are paid actors and/or have
> been riled up by them.
> 
>                Linus

This has never been a legal discussion, but a procedural transparency 
discussion. You could simply say "our lawyer didn't ok this", and that's 
perfectly fine. No one is going to argue against that.

Your action up until now is also exactly what a hypothetical paid actor 
would have wanted to see happening -- it's not helping **understanding** 
but rather only extending argument on what would have been a quick response.

Calling everyone "paid actors" don't help. If you have more than 1 
minute to waste, I am under my most regularly-used internet handle to 
respond to you. So has the person who sent the original "revert" patch.

Running a quick grep on the other mailing lists and their commits may 
also have helped answer that.

Thanks,
Peter.