>The anti-CoC crowd accept no explicit limitation Ah, no, the anti-CoC crowd wants the status quo antebellum, which DOES have explicit limitations; for example

>The anti-CoC crowd accept no explicit limitation Ah, no, the anti-CoC crowd wants the status quo antebellum, which DOES have explicit limitations; for example: GPL-2.0, and of course whether your contribution is accepted or not by the main kernel dev team. Of course, all these limitations are of CODE, not behaviours, but is it important for an open source project (theoretically) open to all members of humanity to contribute, no matter how evil or repugnant their personal views are, to regulate this? Does the fact that ReiserFS was developed by a murderer mean that we need to explicitly delete all his contributions to the kernel? [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2006/10/7956/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2006/10/7956/ >Wikipedia: ReiserFS is currently supported on Linux (without quota support) licensed as GPLv2. Introduced in version 2.4.1 of the Linux kernel, it was the first journaling file system to be included in the standard kernel