Eric S. Raymond confirms that the kernel contributors can remove their code from the kernel at any time:

Eric S. Raymond confirms that the kernel contributors can remove their code from the kernel at any time:

>I’m writing now, from all of that experience and with all that perspective, about the recent flap over the new CoC and the attempt to organize a mass withdrawal of creator permissions from the kernel [...] First, let me confirm that this threat has teeth. I researched the relevant law when I was founding the Open Source Initiative. In the U.S. there is case law confirming that reputational losses relating to conversion of the rights of a contributor to a GPLed project are judicable in law. I do not know the case law outside the U.S., but in countries observing the Berne Convention without the U.S.’s opt-out of the “moral rights” clause, that clause probably gives the objectors an even stronger case.

esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8139

LMFAO get ready for the shitshow

Attached: portrait.jpg (500x335, 33K)

Other urls found in this thread:

instagram.com/patriciatorvalds/
web.archive.org/web/20180916224756/https://opensource.com/life/15/8/patricia-torvalds-interview
paul-m-jones.com/archives/6926
lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/23/212
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Is it time to start digging shit up on all the big contributors and try to shame them?

I don't think they can overpower "the machine" but they can create so much trouble and harassment that perhaps they can stop trying to shove the CoC up our asses.

*African-American who glows in the dark detected*

Unless the tranny is absolutely insane and willing to get shot by all the megacorps that actually depend on linux, this will act like a MAD, and it will do nothing.

I don’t understand the text you’ve quoted and how it means people can pull their contributions out of the kernel

It's ogre.

The law may allow for contributors to roll back their changes. So if a company using Linux doesn’t remove those changes from their OSs they are breaching copyright law. This is a big IF the law allows for retiring your contributions.

They can remove their GPL'd code arguing that they do not share the political views of the Linux Kernel team and the Code of Conduct author.

...

> freeshit
> copyright

Attached: 451F458C-5B38-4C35-A219-82FEBA3143AD.png (500x500, 9K)

If the can remove code. What does that mean for products and services that uses Linux?

No Gnu license is more relevant than the copyright laws of any given country. If the law says that you can relicense your code for reputational purposes (because you wouldn't like to be associated with SJWs) you can.

I really hope they try to pull this. Microsoft backs up the repo 100%. They’d roll out their own closed source Billix in under a week. It’d be the final nail in the coffin for freetards.

This is about to get really ugly, isn't it?

so if this threat is legit, why wasn't SCO able to revoke their licenses for the code found in linux?

Attached: a5e2272d73e60a624bea1f3365efb92b188c3598b6099db7b760d0df0d672cad.jpg (720x960, 101K)

Wait, wouldn't pulling your stuff back fire?

If I made a code, and I pull out from contribution. Wouldn't someone identify that I did? Wouldn't I ended up being blacklisted from working with these tech companies?

When you create any piece of code, even if you take no other action, you own the full copyright to it. To protect all the people involved with Linux and open source in general, you must release your code under an "open source license", under which you still own the code, but have given others license to use it in various ways. The conditions of the licenses vary, but importantly GPLv2 (which is the license used for the Linux kernel) allows the original author to revoke the license they previously granted for the open source community to use their code.

ESR is pointing out that not only does the text of the license support this, but there is United States case law which supports the idea that this property of the GPLv2 is enforceable.

I have never read about this case, but:

>The SCO–Linux disputes are a series of legal and public disputes between the software company SCO Group (SCO) and various Linux vendors and users. The SCO Group alleges that its license agreements with IBM means that source code that IBM wrote and donated to be incorporated into Linux was added in violation of SCO's contractual rights.

It seems like what they were saying is that their code had been stolen by IBM before putting it into the kernel.

What these people are saying is that they want to remove their code in order to not be associated with SJWs. It's different.

No, because if your contributions were valuable enough to matter and the threat legally has teeth, then they'd all be dying to hire Linux experts and former contributors to fill in the gaps with code they own.

This would be terrible for open source if it were the case. Thankfully, OP is full of shit.

Not on your sweet nelly!

Attached: unbased transexual.jpg (589x626, 105K)

of course they can remove their code. they don't sign over their copyright to the project - they just license their code out. such a license can be revoked at any time.

I swear to god if I see her on any open-source conference I'll punch the shit out of her!

>her

>her

It's like with nukes, ideally you never fire a nuke, but you have to have em to keep the peace.
And if someone is mad enough to try to use the nukes without a REALLY good reason, this person will probably just be taken out.

threatening violence is fine, but we can't go around misgenderng people!! it's against the coc!

Cringe.

my apologies
*him

Says the person that didn't fought on the world war 3.

Ok, their tactic is to draw people out and make people lose their job. If this 'pull out protest' have no repercussion I wish everyone the best.

>(because you wouldn't like to be associated with SJWs)
you don't even need a reason as you don't give up ownership of the code. you just take that code, license it under GPL and give the license to that particular project you contribute to. such a license is not eternal and can be revoked by the coder owner (you) at any time. no project I know of makes you sign over ownership. so it's a licensing deal.
in many countries of the EU you can't even sign over code ownership if you wanted. all you can do is give exclusive usage rights (verwertungsrechte in germany) as many euro countries see authorship and copyright as one thing and authorship is immutable. so even if projects made the contributors sign over ownership all the euro contributions still could be pulled.
there's no need to justify why you do with your property what you do. it could be SJWs or you having just a bad day. it's no one's business but yours why you revoke a license.

>but importantly GPLv2 (which is the license used for the Linux kernel) allows the original author to revoke the license
the license doesn't need to "allow" that. it's in common law that you can revoke licenses you issued as issuing a license is not transfer of ownership. it's like the difference of renting out your lawn mower vs selling it. if you rent it out you can go to the renter and take back your lawn mower at any time. (ofc there might be legal disputes depending on the contract you both signed but the lawn mower is still yours and the renter can'd do shit about it).
if you sold (transferred ownership) the lawn mower on the other hand that's it. you cant'd do shit.
same with code. unless the project sends you forms to sign that you transfer code ownership to them (which isn't possible at all in many euro countries because authorship and ownership is the same to them) you can revoke the license at any time. sure, the licensees might be pissed and there might be other contracts you're violating - but revoking the license is in your right and possible at all times. you don't need to justify that you don't even have to say "because I can". you just revoke the license and that's it. the fuckers are done.

So my question is how does this sort of shit even happen in the first place?
How does this CoC thing end up getting put into place if so many people dislike it to begin with? Like it just doesn't make sense.

instagram.com/patriciatorvalds/

web.archive.org/web/20180916224756/https://opensource.com/life/15/8/patricia-torvalds-interview

I bet coraline has a big ole 9" cock what about you guys?

Attached: cf7a9ce6739cf8770fca9facca0a731ee03c806ee6b931e7a8b70df1bbc0e87a.jpg (255x191, 11K)

friendly reminder that hitler should have won

BASED OLD SCHOOL LINUX HACKERS WERE ALL SEXIST SHITLORDS BY TODAYS RIDICULOUS STANDARDS

RESPECT XIR PRONOUNS OR BE FIRED BIGOT

hitler had rothschild blood, he was a plant, it was all part of their plan

Trump is the real hitler

[spoiler]at least he'd better be[/spoiler]

>instagram.com/patriciatorvalds/
God this just screams American "white" woman, I'd be willing to bet if she grew up in Finland she wouldn't have turned out like this.
Linus is a lefty but he's also not an idiot. and before now hasn't fallen to this SJW non-sense.

Bullshit. A license is a contract and you can't back out of it arbitrarily, without risking legal penalties. You mentioned renting, which quite similar. If I'm leasing your house for a given term, you can't kick me out of a whim, you're bound by the terms of our contract, and furthermore the additional protections renters get under the law /beyond/ what is written in our contract.

If this was possible, then why has no one ever done it? I am sure Linus, or someone else, must have pissed someone off enough to revoke the usage of their code, but there doesn't seem to be a single case of it. It just sounds like bull because no one would want to work on a project that would collapse like dominoes because a few people don't like the project anymore.

that joke is unfortunate because Trump is actually a kike plant

>I'd be willing to bet if she grew up in Finland she wouldn't have turned out like this
110% right
US is not the place where you grow up a family

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Find better ways to help improve the community.

jidf desperately tries to push this narrative non stop

i wonder why

>Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
>Find better ways to help improve the community.

Attached: upload_2017-5-21_15-44-14.png (790x371, 51K)

This is a person that can be described as an incompetent.

the community can be improved by keeping SJWs away

she doesn't identify as incompetent shitlord

Attached: 6f059dd88f808eafcdde2e6de49eb53306e7137d3f46ea03e802d65071218015.png (606x326, 169K)

She'll be live streaming all over the place!!

SJWS CANT KEEP THEIR NOSES OUT OF SHITTING THINGS UP

WOMEN IN TECH WAS THE FIRST MISTAKE

THINGS WERE BETTER WHEN IT WAS A SEXIST BOYS CLUB

cringe

Social Justice Attack Survival Guide
paul-m-jones.com/archives/6926

i'd go to an open-source conference just to punch her.

Attached: 1532114495309.jpg (540x540, 32K)

be more tolerant you absolute s h i t l o r d

Ded

you've set your priorities absolutely right, based anons

Not one fucking comment pointing out that all legalities are completely fucking irrelevant because not one single fucking Linux developer is going to do this, even if said developer disapproves of the CoC speech suppression.

wtf GPL sucks ass
why would anyone want to use this trash license ever again after this mess?

Attached: 1500403253737.png (1777x657, 230K)

Who is this and why should I care? Related to Linus in some way? So what?
Listen, if something like this can be destroyed from within by just a few people in key positions maybe the bigger problem isn't the SJWs but the structures of these projects themselves?
Something truly owned by the direct contributors of the project(s) might be a better model.
I'm not sure but the thing is all this "post meritocracy" crap just seems like the usual crap that you might hear from an HR person or a "community organizer" or some shit like that.

The thing with technology though is that in a given product the results speak for themselves. Shit code is shit code and there is no amount of politics that can change that.

>license let's contributors retroactively claw back code
What the fuck is this shitty license and why is Linux using it?

Attached: 1373024873910.jpg (800x800, 92K)

not may
you maintain copyright of your work in open source
so you can revoke their redistribution rights any time
they can't even copy it because they saw the source lol, a full new clean room kernel would have to be created
they can't even kill you because copyright got extended to 1307401 billion years lol

Wishful thinking, get ready for the collapse user. Wild ride ahead

and get sued to oblivion by just two or three people

>multiple developers say they will
>they legally can
>hurr nobody will do it

Attached: image.jpg (277x271, 18K)

Raymond is known for anti-GPL FUD. Don't believe his lies.

>not one single fucking Linux developer is going to do this
think about end product user...it would be fruitless if a bunch of devs tries to pull this stunt
>Something truly owned by the direct contributors of the project(s) might be a better model
might be a better idea imo, or
take vote before doing anything this stupid ffs

I give esr credit for posting it to the LKML, but nothing is going to happen. You'll see.

it's either that or taking ownership of copyright
do you want the (((Linux Foundation))) to own what you write?

Worst-case scenario: A couple of obscure drivers get pulled from the Linux tree. That's assuming I'm wrong about not a single developer doing anything.

it's an awesome license and linux uses it for precisely this reason. would you rather their work be allowed to get hijacked by politically motivated spergs? if it wasn't trannies it would be some other glow in the dark subversives.

Is that what all the sane license do? MIT, BSD, etc.

Which developers?

Aren't SJW already going on witch hunts because of the new CoC? Theyre attempting to take out people like Tso. Don't you think people would rather collapse the system than be pushed out of something they built and contributed to?

>implying this wouldn't happen with a BSD license
This is American copyright law, it has nothing to do with the license

stop posting, Corey

Attached: Corey Ehmke.jpg (240x180, 5K)

it isnt true anyway. once code is GPL'd it belongs to everyone

Raymond's LKML post hasn't gotten a single reply. You're all delusional.

You're fantasizing about what you'd do if you were in a position to do something.

are you referring to this one?
lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/23/212

Literally just pretend to be agender and get the CoC enforcers removed by enforcing their shitty CoC. "Harassing & Assuming & Forcing disclosure of a Contributor's Gender" "Harassing & Assuming & Forcing disclosure of a Contributor's Living/Social priveledge" "Harassing & Assuming & Forcing disclosure of a Contributor's Biological assignment" "Harassing & Assuming & Forcing disclosure of a Contributor's political alignment and as a result witholding or affecting their legal rights originally outlined under the projects GPL2 copyright collaborative license".

I really hope they pull their code and take this to pinnacle. These people want to control things they do not understand. The enforcers are accountable to their own enforcement and legal rights (esp right to life/opinion, discrimination and equality) trump community guidelines.

Otherwise "Linux" will just be reborn under a new title/project.

>Raymond's LKML post hasn't gotten a single reply
So?

>lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/23/212
quick someone reply

Yes.

if that's the one you're referring to, he's a fucking retard

all that matters is freedom of speech. if somebody feels offended by words, they should grow thicker skin or fuck off.

"inclusivity" and "stopping toxicity" are all shorthand for "mentally defenestrating (usually white) males and stopping them from progressing"

men progress when there's conflict- real, physical and backed by hate or virtual, online and backed by a sense of what the leftist snowflakes call "trolling" (which is just black humor)

controlling speech has been a long-term goal of the jewish bolshevist social engineers, and it's about time we put a stop to it.

Attached: toxicity rehab.png (1920x1080, 3.38M)

punching him will only give him +1000 oppression points. if you're going to use violence, go all the way.

What is the least pozzed open source license? The only one I can think of is Creative Commons, but that one is hardly even a license. It's more of a reminder.

If you don't take that as evidence of uninterest, what are you taking as evidence of interest? Which developers have indicated they're open to an exodus, and what have they contributed to the kernel? Been asking this for days, but it's clear you spergs simply enjoy the wishful-thinking exercise.

tolerant of someone else's intolerance?

>using a license
>not threatening excessive violence to anyone who uses your software without your permission

NO TOLERANCE FOR INTOLERANCE BIGOT

or an MIT license for that matter.

Back bones here!
Get your "Fuck this shit I'm out" Branded Back Bone only 1 fuck a piece.
Fed up of CoCs and forced "positive" discrimination, then do I have the deal for you! Social Justice being unjustifiable? Get your "Fuck your reality, I'm a sea turtle" Middle finger buttons or your exclusive "I made this, oops... I deleted it" shirts today!


Pull the code, dev's don't owe anyone shit, restart the project under a different title if you have to. Don't let *your contribution hold *you to ransom. Don't give in to them! They can't do shit.

This is the time *you have been waiting for, the times *you could not win against Billy Bully taking *your lunch money in the school hall... Don't let *him take *your contribution or your creation.
They should use the loopholes availiable to protect the work even if it means rebranding.

Fantasizing? You're just projecting now, what I'm saying is what an average would do in a situation like this

>Bullshit. A license is a contract and you can't back out of it arbitrarily, without risking legal penalties
The user acknowledged that though. What he said is that you can break the contract at any time and revoke the licence. And sure, you may have to pay a shitton of penalties, BUT the other party still has to stop using your code.
I have no idea if that's correct btw, just repeating the post you replied to.

Seriously; wouldn't this result just buttfuck all non-GPLv3 FOSS legally?

Copyleft is based on all the same laws as copyright.

Yes, which is why the rest of us that use BSD and MIT licenses keep telling you that later GPL licenses restrict the devs