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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 76623C46475 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:42:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 125062075D for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:42:08 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 125062075D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=thyrsus.com 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 S1727150AbeJZGQ2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2018 02:16:28 -0400 Received: from thyrsus.com ([71.162.243.5]:51120 "EHLO snark.thyrsus.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726217AbeJZGQ2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2018 02:16:28 -0400 Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AF2BE3A42A3; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:41:23 -0400 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , visionsofalice@redchan.it, linux-kernel , rms@gnu.org, bruce@perens.com, moglen@columbia.edu, bkuhn@sfconservancy.org, editor@lwn.net, NeilBrown , Laura Abbott , Linus Torvalds , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Thomas Gleixner , Olof Johansson , Chris Mason , Mishi Choudhary , linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. Message-ID: <20181025214123.GA2448@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com Mail-Followup-To: esr@thyrsus.com, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , visionsofalice@redchan.it, linux-kernel , rms@gnu.org, bruce@perens.com, moglen@columbia.edu, bkuhn@sfconservancy.org, editor@lwn.net, NeilBrown , Laura Abbott , Linus Torvalds , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Thomas Gleixner , Olof Johansson , Chris Mason , Mishi Choudhary , linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com> <87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <185b786a2bd6e8d527dca161dc42e4f1@redchan.it> <20181025081911.GB11343@kroah.com> <20181025193901.GD26403@thyrsus.com> <20181025204718.GB25649@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181025204718.GB25649@thunk.org> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Theodore Y. Ts'o : > 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? -- Eric S. Raymond 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.