4 ms·

> Most of Linux is written by paid contributors. They won't leave. I expect you're correct. However, the threat here isn't that a bunch of developers will leav

> Most of Linux is written by paid contributors. They won't leave. I expect you're correct. However, the threat here isn't that a bunch of developers will leave. The threat is that any developers will leave and rescind the license to use their code. That would mean that code would have to be removed from the kernel, which would break backward compatibility. IANAL, but I believe an attempt to maintain compatibility would be "based on" the previous code to which the linux kernel now has no claim, and would therefore be a violation of copyright as well. I don't really see any practical way you'd be able to remove code from the kernel in an event like this. You'd basically have to fork it. > Most of those who kindle this flamewar are not Linux contributors but the alt-right. They also got involved in the Larry Garfield-Drupal affair (which was extremely poorly communicated). I believe you're conflating a lot of different groups under the label "alt-right" here. The bottom line is that there is a cultural shift happening, and there are many who oppose this sort of thing that aren't "alt-right" in the least. Mislabelling them as such serves to further inflame the divisions within our community, and allows their concerns to be dismissed out of hand. I think this is a mistake.

Crontab 8y ago
I don't see these providers can rescind their GPLed contributions to the kernel; short of a GPL violation.
- nailer 8y ago
  As the article mentioned rescinding is allowed in GPL v2
  - AlexMax 8y ago
    As far as I can tell, this is not settled law. GPLv2 is not the only license without an explicit "no-take-backsies" clause, and pretty much all literature I've read about open source previous to this incident suggested that although you could relicense future versions of the code, you couldn't put the genie back into the bottle on old releases. Also, to be frank, I think that if there _was_ settled law saying you could rescind old licenses, it would have far-reaching ripple effects throughout the open source world. Let's be clear, it would be a weapon that could be used by any slighted maintainer or former maintainer to damage a project, for _any_ reason. And if a single or group of maintainers could do it, a corporation with dollar signs in its eyes could do it just as easily. Be careful what you wish for.
- bena 8y ago
  Because they still retain copyright over the code. They've merely granted the Linux kernel a right to use the code under the GPL. They are with their rights to rescind that license. Which I think is a mess because of how that reaches out. It may also be another point in favor of the GPL just being a bad license. If I rescind the GPL on my code, then everything that depends on it needs to rewritten and there may be things that aren't aware they're using my code that needs to be rewritten. Then what about if someone modified my code? Then where does the copyright lie? It's crazy.
  - bigbugbag 8y ago
    I tried doing that on my wikipedia contribution after being bullied by a sysop, my plea was ignored (actually removed from public view) and received a permanent ban from all wikimedia project instead, probably to ensure I could not keep asking for this. I was told creating such a precedent could collapse the whole wikipedia and that it was too big a money maker for them to let this happen. I lacked the financial means to enforce my rights in court so I dropped it and moved away from spending 10-14h a day contributing to wikipedia. The kernel is probably not as corrupted as wikipedia management is, so they may allow for rescinding GPL if asked but would that prevent the removed code from being added again rewritten or not? Could the original author sue for copyright violation ?
    - dogma1138 8y ago
      The kernel is also used by 1000’s of companies that would now be open to lawsuits so you don’t even need money for a lawyer law firms would jump on the opportunity to sue Google or Amazon.
      - bigbugbag 8y ago
        The way the US does things is not necessarily how the rest of the world does. A non US citizen has exactly 0 right in the US as I've been remembered when I got scammed by a us reshipper service who unilaterally decided to keep my belongings.
chx 8y ago
> I believe you're conflating a lot of different groups under the label "alt-right" here. I posted my writeup on reddit and there were a number of people in the comments who crystal clear never saw an open source project in their lives OTOH they had post history on places like /r/the_donald and /r/kotakuinaction . I will not even try to separate GamerGaters from Trump supporters, the alt-right as an umbrella will do. I have not said everyone is such but -- much more than there should be (which is zero).

Crontab 8y ago

I don't see these providers can rescind their GPLed contributions to the kernel; short of a GPL violation.

nailer 8y ago
As the article mentioned rescinding is allowed in GPL v2
- AlexMax 8y ago
  As far as I can tell, this is not settled law. GPLv2 is not the only license without an explicit "no-take-backsies" clause, and pretty much all literature I've read about open source previous to this incident suggested that although you could relicense future versions of the code, you couldn't put the genie back into the bottle on old releases. Also, to be frank, I think that if there _was_ settled law saying you could rescind old licenses, it would have far-reaching ripple effects throughout the open source world. Let's be clear, it would be a weapon that could be used by any slighted maintainer or former maintainer to damage a project, for _any_ reason. And if a single or group of maintainers could do it, a corporation with dollar signs in its eyes could do it just as easily. Be careful what you wish for.
bena 8y ago
Because they still retain copyright over the code. They've merely granted the Linux kernel a right to use the code under the GPL. They are with their rights to rescind that license. Which I think is a mess because of how that reaches out. It may also be another point in favor of the GPL just being a bad license. If I rescind the GPL on my code, then everything that depends on it needs to rewritten and there may be things that aren't aware they're using my code that needs to be rewritten. Then what about if someone modified my code? Then where does the copyright lie? It's crazy.
- bigbugbag 8y ago
  I tried doing that on my wikipedia contribution after being bullied by a sysop, my plea was ignored (actually removed from public view) and received a permanent ban from all wikimedia project instead, probably to ensure I could not keep asking for this. I was told creating such a precedent could collapse the whole wikipedia and that it was too big a money maker for them to let this happen. I lacked the financial means to enforce my rights in court so I dropped it and moved away from spending 10-14h a day contributing to wikipedia. The kernel is probably not as corrupted as wikipedia management is, so they may allow for rescinding GPL if asked but would that prevent the removed code from being added again rewritten or not? Could the original author sue for copyright violation ?
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    The kernel is also used by 1000’s of companies that would now be open to lawsuits so you don’t even need money for a lawyer law firms would jump on the opportunity to sue Google or Amazon.
    - bigbugbag 8y ago
      The way the US does things is not necessarily how the rest of the world does. A non US citizen has exactly 0 right in the US as I've been remembered when I got scammed by a us reshipper service who unilaterally decided to keep my belongings.

chx 8y ago

> I believe you're conflating a lot of different groups under the label "alt-right" here. I posted my writeup on reddit and there were a number of people in the comments who crystal clear never saw an open source project in their lives OTOH they had post history on places like /r/the_donald and /r/kotakuinaction . I will not even try to separate GamerGaters from Trump supporters, the alt-right as an umbrella will do. I have not said everyone is such but -- much more than there should be (which is zero).