On 25/09/18 05:49, Mark David Dumlao wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 6:34 PM Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 24/09/2018 13:11, R0b0t1 wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> To me it looks like youtubers and some sites trying to make money through >>>> clickbait? >>>> >>> >>> If you had not heard of it elsewhere the Linux code of conduct was >>> amended. It makes the CoC similar to those of other projects where >>> there are a number of (usually nontechnical) contributors who identify >>> as a champion of social justice. >>> [...] >> Well, if kernel developers are fine with that, then I don't see how >> that's relevant to anyone who isn't a kernel dev. If they want to adopt >> social justice politics, that's really their prerogative. >> If you read LWN, actually a lot of kernel devs aren't fine with it - they didn't have any say, and don't like it. > > Actually, social justice politics didn't seem to have anything to do > with the CoC > adoption. It was more of Linus taking a backseat (due to how he self-assessed > his vacation behavior) and pretty soon after, they adopted CoC, most likely as > some kind of "standardization" > > Barely a week has passed since the CoC though, and already there are political > manuevers to oust high-profile kernel devs
How are they going to achieve that? As has been pointed out, if Linus continues to trust them, and treat them as lieutenants, there's nothing the SJWs can do. There's also been comments that - actually - one person in particular who's been a bit of an SJW is actually in breach of the CoC herself, so those manoeuvres could backfire spectacularly. > to the point that some contributors > have started talks on exercising their copyright privileges and > withholding their > code. Which they have a right to do, by the way, if they feel the foundation > has betrayed them. Withholding their code FROM WHOM? > > So as esr has put it: >> 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. > > (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8139) > > This is not a little online trollfest that only affects kernel devs. > This can affect > literally everything. Biblical proportions, dogs and cats living together, > etc. > As we know from the SCOG case, pretty much everything is judicable in American law, even when they have absolutely no case. Are you telling me that I can withdraw YOUR right to use my code, just because I dislike what some random 3rd party with no relationship to either of us has done? Surely that pretty blatantly falls foul of estoppel. Although of course that didn't stop SCOG ... Where's PJ when you need her ... As for "moral rights", I don't think that actually grants any extra rights or anything. It mostly says that if I am the author of something, I can NOT sign away my right to be credited as such. You can buy the copyright off me, at which point I have no rights to benefit further from the work, but you cannot buy the right to be credited as the author - that is not for sale under "moral rights" law. (Oh - and the linux trademark is apparently Linus' personal property, so that throws another hand grenade onto the table ... :-) Cheers, Wol
