From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B749DC433F4 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 19:47:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F496208D9 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 19:47:25 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1F496208D9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=petrovitsch.priv.at Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726904AbeIYBvM (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2018 21:51:12 -0400 Received: from esgaroth.petrovitsch.at ([78.47.184.11]:3046 "EHLO esgaroth.tuxoid.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726001AbeIYBvM (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2018 21:51:12 -0400 Received: from thorin.petrovitsch.priv.at (80-110-99-3.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at [80.110.99.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by esgaroth.tuxoid.at (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w8OJjdrb027134 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Sep 2018 21:45:41 +0200 Subject: Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it. To: xDynamite Cc: "jonsmirl@gmail.com" , Theodore Tso , fche@redhat.com, riel@surriel.com, ec429@cantab.net, Olof Johansson , Jonathan Corbet , lkml References: <20180919081812.020f19e3@lwn.net> <72dadc76-44fe-ecb5-e142-0a9129082c93@cantab.net> <93b77a9a-12c3-6f7d-d2c3-0e0d7875a28b@cantab.net> <589966d9cd0ddccc88f33fcb7975bb4464be7696.camel@surriel.com> <87zhwbj8xe.fsf@redhat.com> <20180921231545.GC2966@thunk.org> From: Bernd Petrovitsch Message-ID: <8c18dcc5-9028-672f-1449-359ac3d73592@petrovitsch.priv.at> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 21:45:36 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------CE87B260FDF929D4E4BE134B" Content-Language: en-US X-DCC--Metrics: esgaroth.tuxoid.at 1480; Body=9 Fuz1=9 Fuz2=9 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97 at esgaroth.tuxoid.at X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------CE87B260FDF929D4E4BE134B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 24/09/2018 20:59, \0xDynamite wrote: >>> * Publishing others=E2=80=99 private information, such as a physical = or >>> electronic >>> address, without explicit permission >> >> I need an (explicit) permission to "publish" an already published emai= l >> address which is already world-wide known because it can be found by t= he >> simplest and worst search engine as the email address is in public >> mailing list archives and git repos? >> >> Sounds pretty absurd as the people themselves already published their >> email address. >> >> IMHO you cannot "publish" already published stuff. >=20 > The notion of being "published" means at least these two things: 1) Where exactly - URL? - is that notion defined? Especially the intention is IMHO not necessary - just the fact if it happened (and I don't think we want to discuss legal stuff about "X broke into my home, stole and published my work" - the patent world has the same problem). > you INTEND it to be PUBLIC, 2) you made it available to the PUBLIC > A semi-private email list is a boundary area of being public. Just Define "semi-private" - URL?: Any company/club/family/...-internal ML is - should be;-) - obviously private as the subscription policy is usually pretty selective (read: not public, not debatable, ...) and the archives - if any - are not public by design. So everyone there should know that. Of course, anyone getting all mails can put an $SEARCH_MACHINE indexed archive publicly online but that's another (law) question. On the otherhand, if the mailinglist is public, the (future) subscribers should know the beforehand. > like a memo distributed within a university department. Participants > in the latter have some reasonable expectation that the material is > not being published in the larger public sphere beyond actions of the > trusted participants involved (which might share it in a limited > fashion as a personal note). ACK but what has that to do with LKML etc? You try to change - manipulate - the issues of the discussion. Are you only a troll? > 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 really don't want to go down that road - neither with law people and even less with techies. So how can be (source) code (at least in any publicly known/defined language) posted on a "everyone can subscribe" mailinglist, archived in several $SEARCH_ENGINE indexed mailinglist archives and replicated in a myriad of public accessible git-repos with the only intention of inclusion in the Kernel not be *obviously* and *clearly* public? > It is often not intended for the public, per se, only a specialized Maybe but doesn't change any fact of publication - you may also want to check with patent folks and "unintended or unwanted publication" (yes, some talk in a "maybe publicly accessible space" might count there as "publication") - they have more or less the same situation. > COMMUNITY. Because once published, it belongs to copyright and fair> u= se (THAT sticky little wicket). In the law area, the Copyright (TTBOMK) and the much more advanced Central European Authors rights start to exist with existence of the "work" (and not a =C2=B5s later) independent of any status or situation o= f publication. Where does the "fair use" come from? Reads: where is that defined? If you want me to define "fair use of source code publicized in the LKML and similar under the GPLv2": You also cease the right to efeectively revoke it (though that is in some jurisdictions not possible but that "revoke-right" was made for completely different situations - long before GPL or CC was even thinkable). "effectively revoke it" is meant that you cannot say "I wrote parts of it/I'm the initial contributor/I have a significant patch accepted and I'm fed up with the kernel so remove all my contributions". BTW you cannot do that at your workplace either because in all sane software development companies you cease all (transferable) rights of your written to the company paying you (and the rest is usually not enough to get anything revoked). I don't see why that should be any different with GPLv2 patches for the Kernel sent to public mailinglists with the intent of inclusion. Please get back to the issue and circumstances at hand and do not try to divert people with "not intended for the public" or "semi-public" or any other off-topic stuff which is clearly not the case here. Or - even better - shut up, unsubscribe and go away, thank you. MfG, Bernd, NAL but I talked to a lot of them;-) PS: Sorry for troll feeding:-( --=20 Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at LUGA : http://www.luga.at --------------CE87B260FDF929D4E4BE134B Content-Type: application/pgp-keys; name="pEpkey.asc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pEpkey.asc" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQENBFr26nABCAC94WhTqVPMksk/AErK3NqDKXE0sqO5umWIF3f4DYRidk8SIuNq Fk3Sc8hqE2HlbCB9lxV9q+eqDQ8bRjMF6ud7rjXortlwmoclRRMUuSJhluKo0C7o y2fJIwlQAcAKWNfOKqZBTTz81Mntb4j26MsSL7t7JIibst/G7EfoqyB9CkeoI8R2 20WVKV7Cb70G5cYZkLrSdjhSZ8FJn0QTb+r/TTYHRCFvU2sv+wvG3LAdWfHVnyaC l9rPkglsYXFCtsdx3jW2zvWf+mGEjpANlVc/9M621C/uS7viLzalmFENpgM1UqFx TEEt8mwepc7dkiiKlslmDGUWSfc/BAcln8BjABEBAAG0LUJlcm5kIFBldHJvdml0 c2NoIDxiZXJuZEBwZXRyb3ZpdHNjaC5wcml2LmF0PokBVAQTAQgAPhYhBBp+6uAd nwsL14MwOAUgtH2tYL69BQJa9upyAhsDBQkB4TOABQsJCAcCBhUKCQgLAgQWAgMB Ah4BAheAAAoJEAUgtH2tYL69e+EH/jL5uerVy/JnSTjM4f6UeWSXCT/RoIACccws gvr84g5mwYy23c6TxUNNLgeCSGFWCkGxiF07kWazSvMSaQJ7Jb0cIxgqAQfR4xm3 g/O2bu8E0ZvMu1naMVdYrA6iXX40fylrEONF85+/93ccU60sa443ZxjzmQy8Hh4/ Siu0tOPrfvBgdovUcIhJaAAStcPLVocYgQ6zu2A9CCHcBTjaCiRiT4s2IPsooEZU chKObAormMXJS2mdYHcH/a/6E6+NKnrvZ4yfhAkPF3K1M0Bc1Nvc0ADj62Ffpice Mnrd/ki31ct5yIUeViJzNNxApXFuThxm1Nmpgmn/eRG2eHnlvu25AQ0EWvbqcQEI AOnQvBVfytvhpeR96YtYTG2VW85Byv92T/FqG7rPHNm7fVxuJtFXZ8L82LKDTl7r WtwwbnWFpha3/OAhb4Hn4fWZveDNSPNN8BUMh5BbTV/EW/053F4pBX4uq4/L1t3M JQZH5QJrDRNAEL56JfK0yOOGJOvXBMSNAe1gXfLWiE6gGwtHxsoDZfPbSNYl703d f4UaSsG0AleVWw+BGGQuYoeD9/icoy673bca22LdcxcV70SWcNaYcutduwAQYZfe OTsDO0x/VpapLm7KsyQuNW2EYSPM8RjwuApet1TZxfU4opInQ7HbIusz/kWAWCr3 q47TvuD9c0jG8cKM3UP4UdcAEQEAAYkBPAQYAQgAJhYhBBp+6uAdnwsL14MwOAUg tH2tYL69BQJa9upxAhsMBQkB4TOAAAoJEAUgtH2tYL69YS0H/21k3QUKHj/m3juD X3yIbebr+/SR7Db0yrZXLh0RvS9DN2u0E+V26lb9jq+PDHDOJlqgHoiNK5MeWKBA 2yhpFvwx65P6DS3EXUhIT+1NN0CwtXcuSCt7DKHwmuSBZq+2FKr6niNllxKGWUhz EOYtHE71Xm95LPjVi+ETzONF9Xt1ibjFahioSgx8ld/OrsUKv2nVmWVrHErQ+Ed0 m2fhBB0V9hhv7oCiKv0dfDeoPmeQWmiwMEqBYMgMMaJBUBs4pVwrHYVYYvWGLTfV uyqqdpcKo99ns7ALSI7PGCwM4J9ra77L8PQenc329eEREzhC0Ok/Qgk+rI832lD7 bxT8MO4=3D =3DpFcw -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------CE87B260FDF929D4E4BE134B--