6 ms·

No, you can't take open source code back

29 points by smush 8y ago

smush 8y ago
If this is a dupe or near-dupe, I'm happy to have a link to the thread where the discussion already happened, I'm just after reading the HN comments.
- howard941 8y ago
  Please click on the 'past' thingie to find that link
  - smush 8y ago
    So it looks like this was posted but had no comments at the time, but thank you for introducing me to that feature which I hadn't noticed before.
pexaizix 8y ago
>No, the real issue is trolls arguing that codes of conduct are wrong [...] Codes of conducts are here to stay. Calling people who don't want codes of conduct "trolls", i.e. pushing your agenda in the middle of a news article, is the reason journalism is the laughing stock of the world. (Having said that, I agree that you can't just take back source code, no matter the reason)
- zeroname 8y ago
  It also makes the entire article worthless. Somebody who pushes an agenda isn't going to provide an unbiased assessment of the actual legal arguments. I clicked on the article expecting to hear both sides. Instead, I get all the usual pro-FOSS activist sources. > I agree that you can't just take back source code But your "agreement" is irrelevant! I "agree" that the GPL shouldn't be revocable, but that's also irrelevant to the question. There are actually quite a few clauses in the GPL that do revoke the license grant, if they are not followed. Arguments that the GPL itself is revocable are quite old and far predates the whole CoC kerfuffle: https://lwn.net/Articles/347236/ https://lwn.net/Articles/347236/
  - pexaizix 8y ago
    To tell you the truth, I have always assumed that publishing code under a licence meant that that particular version of the code was under that licence and that it could never be revoked (unless the user violated it, of course). I didn't know there was a discussion around that fact.
- howard941 8y ago
  The OP author wrote another piece here https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-happens-if-you-try-to-take-your-code-out-of-linux/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-happens-if-you-try-to-tak... that I found more compelling and not so clear-cut regarding the legal ability to revoke the license grant but there too, the anonymous protagonist is a "troll." I can't gen up the motivation to see if the word appears in all of the fellow's articles.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  People that have no involvement with a project showing up with meaningless threats to try and force their point of view seem like trolls to me.
  - AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
    You actually see that going both ways - people who have not contributed before to a project suggesting a code of conduct to be added and people who have not contributed before opposing it. > to try and force their point of view What if they only wish for a discussion on the issue in order for the right decision to be taken?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- saosebastiao 8y ago
  The person attempting to revoke their GPL licensed code is known for harassing the Debian Women and LinuxChix groups, as well as generally advocating for violence against women and feminists in particular. I mean the guy has openly advocated for the legalization of rape. He's absolutely a troll. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/MikeeUSA http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/MikeeUSA EDIT: lol, the trolls are definitely out in force today.
  - xd 8y ago
    Sounds like he needs dealing with via law .. codes of conduct won't fix his behaviour.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      Which law? And a code of conduct will absolutely make it clear that he's not welcome in the community and why, allowing the community to extricate themselves from him in a meaningful way.
      - greglindahl 8y ago
        It's fairly common for the troll to then start a meta-argument about the code of conduct, or, to accuse others of violating the code of conduct. Eventually the notion of "don't be an asshole" tends to win the argument, but it can take a while.
      - pexaizix 8y ago
        If you need a code of conduct to keep someone like him away, your project was dysfunctional to begin with.
        monocasa 8y ago
        What makes you say that?
        pexaizix 8y ago
- apostacy 8y ago
  The problem with codes of conduct is that many of them contain pro-harassment carve-outs, for vaguely defined groups like "marginalized peoples". They specifically enshrine harassment against by some groups onto other groups. (I will provide citations in the next few hours at lunch if anyone wants) The Contributor Covenant also encourages and protects policing other contributor's activity outside of the community, not relating to the project or anyone connected with the project. This has the effect of encouraging people to dig through your Twitter history trying to find something "problematic" that you said 10 years ago. If you can't be part of a project without harassing others because they are white and stalking them outside of the community, maybe you should rethink your involvement. I certainly would not want to work with you.
  - mprev 8y ago
    Citations would be great, yes please.
    - apostacy 8y ago
      Many codes of conduct include language like this. > Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding: Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort.... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17012304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17012304 In other words, you can engage in harassment, and it will specifically be permitted, depending on the perceived identity of the victim or the harasser.
      - jfengel 8y ago
        I don't believe that's what it says. They talk about specific things that they don't act on, which are not in and of themselves harassment. That is to say, if somebody is harassing you, you need to have a better justification that it is indeed harassment than merely that it's "reverse racism". Similarly, they're saying that if somebody refuses to explain "cultural appropriation" again, that isn't in itself harassment. I'm perplexed as to why they even felt compelled to say that, since these aren't harassment. As far as I can tell, the point is to specifically call out techniques that are frequently used to harass people, badgering them to justify the same arguments repeatedly, or using frequent reports in the hopes of getting them removed. These are things that occur in a lot of online communities, taking advantage of the large numbers of people in the majority to shut down people who aren't. Moderation is an imperfect process, and they appear to be publicly acknowledging ways in which it fails. And that they will attempt to compensate for it, in ways which are easily misrepresented as "abuse" by people in the best position to benefit from a nominally "fair" process. It's clear that it's not a declaration that marginalized people can engage in harassment.
- dfxm12 8y ago
  Calling people who don't want codes of conduct "trolls" The article isn't doing this. It's calling trolls "people who try to combat codes of conduct with the threat of removing code as a magic bullet to stop them".
0xcde4c3db 8y ago
Some developers seem to engage in very wishful thinking about licensing. I remember seeing, ~15-20 years ago, "licenses" asserting not merely the right to globally revoke the license, but to change the terms retroactively, which is completely absurd.
- zeroname 8y ago
  "Absurdity" is not a legal term, to my knowledge. Don't assume that because a contract is absurd, exploitative or even satirical that it won't hold up in court.
  - hnbroseph 8y ago
    there are a variety of reasons a contract can be unenforceable, including notions of being 'unconscionable' or 'unfair'.
  - 0xcde4c3db 8y ago
    I use the term "absurd" not to make a legal argument, but to suggest that such an agreement is fundamentally devoid of any sensible meaning in the context of forming a contract. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that the legal argument would boil down to the offer of a license being illusory [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_promise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_promise
jordigh 8y ago
Wait, I recognise that name. "MikeeUSA". > I wholeheartedly /support/ sexism, as-long as it is not against men. Isn't he a known provocateur? Are we being provoked?
- zeroname 8y ago
  Finishing that quote for you: > ...Since men are now being assaulted as thanks for their ceaseless decades-long work on opensource by people who did not put in the time, men should /support sexism/ by revoking license to their gratis licensed copyrighted code from any project that adds a "Code of Conduct". Basically, this guy is spinning the oppression narrative, just from the opposite angle. We probably shouldn't be focusing so much on who is fighting this matter and for which ideological reasons, because we're talking about a legal framework. Those who challenge that framework may well be trolls, but the fact that they are troll is orthogonal to the legal outcome. That is, you may well consider Oracle to be trolls, but they're still winning (parts of) their case against Google.
belorn 8y ago
There is in general two main methods for revoking a license: 1), US copyright law (17 U.S. Code § 203), which allow the author to terminate a granted license after about 35-40 years. not extremely relevant in software and the people on the linux kernel mailing list will need to wait an other 7 or so more years before it can become relevant in the kernel. 2) License and legal interpretation. The author can change their interpretation of the license and how it interacts with copyright law. This is much more relevant within the context of the linux kernel since there are proprietary kernel modules that the Linux Foundation members own. Nothing prevents an author to de-facto revoke a implicit/passive/unwritten permission for such combinations. Beside those two there really isn't any realistic method of revoking a license once legally released under an open license.
- apostacy 8y ago
  I have seen some of my favorite free software disappeared by its creator when they decide they want to sell it. Synergy comes to mind, but at least they are making a minimal effort to honor the GPL. Also AxCrypt. I don't think that creators are obligated to continue distribution, but it still bothers me when that happens, especially if they benefited from the fruits of the community.

29 points by smush 8y ago

If this is a dupe or near-dupe, I'm happy to have a link to the thread where the discussion already happened, I'm just after reading the HN comments.

howard941 8y ago
Please click on the 'past' thingie to find that link
- smush 8y ago
  So it looks like this was posted but had no comments at the time, but thank you for introducing me to that feature which I hadn't noticed before.

pexaizix 8y ago

>No, the real issue is trolls arguing that codes of conduct are wrong [...] Codes of conducts are here to stay. Calling people who don't want codes of conduct "trolls", i.e. pushing your agenda in the middle of a news article, is the reason journalism is the laughing stock of the world. (Having said that, I agree that you can't just take back source code, no matter the reason)

zeroname 8y ago
It also makes the entire article worthless. Somebody who pushes an agenda isn't going to provide an unbiased assessment of the actual legal arguments. I clicked on the article expecting to hear both sides. Instead, I get all the usual pro-FOSS activist sources. > I agree that you can't just take back source code But your "agreement" is irrelevant! I "agree" that the GPL shouldn't be revocable, but that's also irrelevant to the question. There are actually quite a few clauses in the GPL that do revoke the license grant, if they are not followed. Arguments that the GPL itself is revocable are quite old and far predates the whole CoC kerfuffle: https://lwn.net/Articles/347236/ https://lwn.net/Articles/347236/
- pexaizix 8y ago
  To tell you the truth, I have always assumed that publishing code under a licence meant that that particular version of the code was under that licence and that it could never be revoked (unless the user violated it, of course). I didn't know there was a discussion around that fact.
howard941 8y ago
The OP author wrote another piece here https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-happens-if-you-try-to-take-your-code-out-of-linux/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-happens-if-you-try-to-tak... that I found more compelling and not so clear-cut regarding the legal ability to revoke the license grant but there too, the anonymous protagonist is a "troll." I can't gen up the motivation to see if the word appears in all of the fellow's articles.
boomboomsubban 8y ago
People that have no involvement with a project showing up with meaningless threats to try and force their point of view seem like trolls to me.
- AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
  You actually see that going both ways - people who have not contributed before to a project suggesting a code of conduct to be added and people who have not contributed before opposing it. > to try and force their point of view What if they only wish for a discussion on the issue in order for the right decision to be taken?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
saosebastiao 8y ago
The person attempting to revoke their GPL licensed code is known for harassing the Debian Women and LinuxChix groups, as well as generally advocating for violence against women and feminists in particular. I mean the guy has openly advocated for the legalization of rape. He's absolutely a troll. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/MikeeUSA http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/MikeeUSA EDIT: lol, the trolls are definitely out in force today.
- xd 8y ago
  Sounds like he needs dealing with via law .. codes of conduct won't fix his behaviour.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    Which law? And a code of conduct will absolutely make it clear that he's not welcome in the community and why, allowing the community to extricate themselves from him in a meaningful way.
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      It's fairly common for the troll to then start a meta-argument about the code of conduct, or, to accuse others of violating the code of conduct. Eventually the notion of "don't be an asshole" tends to win the argument, but it can take a while.
    - pexaizix 8y ago
      If you need a code of conduct to keep someone like him away, your project was dysfunctional to begin with.
      - monocasa 8y ago
        What makes you say that?
        pexaizix 8y ago
apostacy 8y ago
The problem with codes of conduct is that many of them contain pro-harassment carve-outs, for vaguely defined groups like "marginalized peoples". They specifically enshrine harassment against by some groups onto other groups. (I will provide citations in the next few hours at lunch if anyone wants) The Contributor Covenant also encourages and protects policing other contributor's activity outside of the community, not relating to the project or anyone connected with the project. This has the effect of encouraging people to dig through your Twitter history trying to find something "problematic" that you said 10 years ago. If you can't be part of a project without harassing others because they are white and stalking them outside of the community, maybe you should rethink your involvement. I certainly would not want to work with you.
- mprev 8y ago
  Citations would be great, yes please.
  - apostacy 8y ago
    Many codes of conduct include language like this. > Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding: Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort.... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17012304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17012304 In other words, you can engage in harassment, and it will specifically be permitted, depending on the perceived identity of the victim or the harasser.
    - jfengel 8y ago
      I don't believe that's what it says. They talk about specific things that they don't act on, which are not in and of themselves harassment. That is to say, if somebody is harassing you, you need to have a better justification that it is indeed harassment than merely that it's "reverse racism". Similarly, they're saying that if somebody refuses to explain "cultural appropriation" again, that isn't in itself harassment. I'm perplexed as to why they even felt compelled to say that, since these aren't harassment. As far as I can tell, the point is to specifically call out techniques that are frequently used to harass people, badgering them to justify the same arguments repeatedly, or using frequent reports in the hopes of getting them removed. These are things that occur in a lot of online communities, taking advantage of the large numbers of people in the majority to shut down people who aren't. Moderation is an imperfect process, and they appear to be publicly acknowledging ways in which it fails. And that they will attempt to compensate for it, in ways which are easily misrepresented as "abuse" by people in the best position to benefit from a nominally "fair" process. It's clear that it's not a declaration that marginalized people can engage in harassment.
dfxm12 8y ago
Calling people who don't want codes of conduct "trolls" The article isn't doing this. It's calling trolls "people who try to combat codes of conduct with the threat of removing code as a magic bullet to stop them".

0xcde4c3db 8y ago

Some developers seem to engage in very wishful thinking about licensing. I remember seeing, ~15-20 years ago, "licenses" asserting not merely the right to globally revoke the license, but to change the terms retroactively, which is completely absurd.

zeroname 8y ago
"Absurdity" is not a legal term, to my knowledge. Don't assume that because a contract is absurd, exploitative or even satirical that it won't hold up in court.
- hnbroseph 8y ago
  there are a variety of reasons a contract can be unenforceable, including notions of being 'unconscionable' or 'unfair'.
- 0xcde4c3db 8y ago
  I use the term "absurd" not to make a legal argument, but to suggest that such an agreement is fundamentally devoid of any sensible meaning in the context of forming a contract. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that the legal argument would boil down to the offer of a license being illusory [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_promise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_promise

jordigh 8y ago

Wait, I recognise that name. "MikeeUSA". > I wholeheartedly /support/ sexism, as-long as it is not against men. Isn't he a known provocateur? Are we being provoked?

zeroname 8y ago
Finishing that quote for you: > ...Since men are now being assaulted as thanks for their ceaseless decades-long work on opensource by people who did not put in the time, men should /support sexism/ by revoking license to their gratis licensed copyrighted code from any project that adds a "Code of Conduct". Basically, this guy is spinning the oppression narrative, just from the opposite angle. We probably shouldn't be focusing so much on who is fighting this matter and for which ideological reasons, because we're talking about a legal framework. Those who challenge that framework may well be trolls, but the fact that they are troll is orthogonal to the legal outcome. That is, you may well consider Oracle to be trolls, but they're still winning (parts of) their case against Google.

belorn 8y ago

There is in general two main methods for revoking a license: 1), US copyright law (17 U.S. Code § 203), which allow the author to terminate a granted license after about 35-40 years. not extremely relevant in software and the people on the linux kernel mailing list will need to wait an other 7 or so more years before it can become relevant in the kernel. 2) License and legal interpretation. The author can change their interpretation of the license and how it interacts with copyright law. This is much more relevant within the context of the linux kernel since there are proprietary kernel modules that the Linux Foundation members own. Nothing prevents an author to de-facto revoke a implicit/passive/unwritten permission for such combinations. Beside those two there really isn't any realistic method of revoking a license once legally released under an open license.

apostacy 8y ago
I have seen some of my favorite free software disappeared by its creator when they decide they want to sell it. Synergy comes to mind, but at least they are making a minimal effort to honor the GPL. Also AxCrypt. I don't think that creators are obligated to continue distribution, but it still bothers me when that happens, especially if they benefited from the fruits of the community.