(I mistakenly sent this with 'r' previously. Please reply to this copy.)
Alan Cox :
> The wording IMHO just needs tightening up - and that's a useful
> discussion that ought to he bad. I tihnk everyone understands the *inent*
> of such wording - don't go around doxing people, or posting their
(I mistakenly sent this with 'r' previously. Please reply to this copy.)
Alan Cox :
> The wording IMHO just needs tightening up - and that's a useful
> discussion that ought to he bad. I tihnk everyone understands the *inent*
> of such wording - don't go around doxing people, or posting their
Alan Cox :
> The wording IMHO just needs tightening up - and that's a useful
> discussion that ought to he bad. I tihnk everyone understands the *inent*
> of such wording - don't go around doxing people, or posting their home
> address on facebook and calling for people to attend with pitchforks.
Alan Cox :
> The wording IMHO just needs tightening up - and that's a useful
> discussion that ought to he bad. I tihnk everyone understands the *inent*
> of such wording - don't go around doxing people, or posting their home
> address on facebook and calling for people to attend with pitchforks.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:56 AM Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Well, then I have to repeat myself: Signed-off source code (in form of
> > patches) in a well-known programming language for a (nowadays)
> > well-known GPLv2 licensed project mailed on "everyone can subscribe"
> > mailinglists, (thus) to be
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:56 AM Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Well, then I have to repeat myself: Signed-off source code (in form of
> > patches) in a well-known programming language for a (nowadays)
> > well-known GPLv2 licensed project mailed on "everyone can subscribe"
> > mailinglists, (thus) to be
>> You did it again. You changed words. I said intended for the public,
>> and you ended your sentence with "intended to be published".
>>
>> Like it or not, both the law and English grammar have ambiguities.
>> People put up with them because they share a common intuition (in a
>> lot of cases)
>> You did it again. You changed words. I said intended for the public,
>> and you ended your sentence with "intended to be published".
>>
>> Like it or not, both the law and English grammar have ambiguities.
>> People put up with them because they share a common intuition (in a
>> lot of cases)
> Well, then I have to repeat myself: Signed-off source code (in form of
> patches) in a well-known programming language for a (nowadays)
> well-known GPLv2 licensed project mailed on "everyone can subscribe"
> mailinglists, (thus) to be found in several $SEARCH_ENGINE-indexed
> mailinglist
> Well, then I have to repeat myself: Signed-off source code (in form of
> patches) in a well-known programming language for a (nowadays)
> well-known GPLv2 licensed project mailed on "everyone can subscribe"
> mailinglists, (thus) to be found in several $SEARCH_ENGINE-indexed
> mailinglist
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 02:34:07PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:
> >> You confuse the issue. My definition included "intended for the
> >> public". But it isn't clear that open source code is intended for the
> >> public -- it is intended for those who code or wish to.
>
> > Well, then I have to
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 02:34:07PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:
> >> You confuse the issue. My definition included "intended for the
> >> public". But it isn't clear that open source code is intended for the
> >> public -- it is intended for those who code or wish to.
>
> > Well, then I have to
So, is code a *published* item? Most of the public can't read it.
>>>
>>> I cannot read (or understand) neither Russian nor Chinese nor almost any
>>> natural (let alone dead) languages of the world. I'm pretty sure that
>>> I'm not the only one;-)
>>> Does that make Russian literature
So, is code a *published* item? Most of the public can't read it.
>>>
>>> I cannot read (or understand) neither Russian nor Chinese nor almost any
>>> natural (let alone dead) languages of the world. I'm pretty sure that
>>> I'm not the only one;-)
>>> Does that make Russian literature
Hi,
> > The CoC is a political document:
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20180924234027/https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1041465346656530432
> ...
> > Here is the author's post-meritocracy manifesto:
> > https://postmeritocracy.org/
>
> There have been those who have characterized the
Hi,
> > The CoC is a political document:
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20180924234027/https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1041465346656530432
> ...
> > Here is the author's post-meritocracy manifesto:
> > https://postmeritocracy.org/
>
> There have been those who have characterized the
Pavel Machek - 25.09.18, 15:28:
> > > > > Your above argument that the Code of Conduct is problematic
> > > > > because of who wrote it seems to contradict your statement
> > > > > that we shall judge by code (or text) alone.
> > > >
> > > > I think there are important differences between code to
Pavel Machek - 25.09.18, 15:28:
> > > > > Your above argument that the Code of Conduct is problematic
> > > > > because of who wrote it seems to contradict your statement
> > > > > that we shall judge by code (or text) alone.
> > > >
> > > > I think there are important differences between code to
On 25/09/2018 19:14, \0xDynamite wrote:
[...]
>>> So, is code a *published* item? Most of the public can't read it.
>>
>> I cannot read (or understand) neither Russian nor Chinese nor almost any
>> natural (let alone dead) languages of the world. I'm pretty sure that
>> I'm not the only one;-)
>>
On 25/09/2018 19:14, \0xDynamite wrote:
[...]
>>> So, is code a *published* item? Most of the public can't read it.
>>
>> I cannot read (or understand) neither Russian nor Chinese nor almost any
>> natural (let alone dead) languages of the world. I'm pretty sure that
>> I'm not the only one;-)
>>
On 22/09/18 00:15, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> People can decide who they want to respond to, but I'm going to gently
> suggest that before people think about responding to a particular
> e-mail, that they do a quick check using "git log
--author=xy...@example.com"
> then decide how much someone
On 22/09/18 00:15, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> People can decide who they want to respond to, but I'm going to gently
> suggest that before people think about responding to a particular
> e-mail, that they do a quick check using "git log
--author=xy...@example.com"
> then decide how much someone
Theodore Y. Ts'o :
> There have been those who have characterized the GPL as being more
> than just a license, but also a political statement. And yet, many
> projects, include Linus, use the GPL without necessarily subscribing
> to all of Richard Stallman's positions, political or otherwise.
Theodore Y. Ts'o :
> There have been those who have characterized the GPL as being more
> than just a license, but also a political statement. And yet, many
> projects, include Linus, use the GPL without necessarily subscribing
> to all of Richard Stallman's positions, political or otherwise.
>> And there is no level on which this is anything but bad.
>
> In this context, I want to mention the tweet by the CoC author from
> August 29, 2018 [1]:
>
>> All software is political.
>
> This tweet was posted as a response to your article "Non-discrimination
> is a core value of open source"
>> And there is no level on which this is anything but bad.
>
> In this context, I want to mention the tweet by the CoC author from
> August 29, 2018 [1]:
>
>> All software is political.
>
> This tweet was posted as a response to your article "Non-discrimination
> is a core value of open source"
>> The notion of being "published" means at least these two things: 1)
>
> Where exactly - URL? - is that notion defined?
I'm giving you the most sensible definition, from the point of view of
a Doctor of Law. I have not seen a real definition, so I'm giving you
one.
> Especially the intention
>> The notion of being "published" means at least these two things: 1)
>
> Where exactly - URL? - is that notion defined?
I'm giving you the most sensible definition, from the point of view of
a Doctor of Law. I have not seen a real definition, so I'm giving you
one.
> Especially the intention
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 02:36:45PM +0200, Christoph Conrads wrote:
> The CoC is a political document:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20180924234027/https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1041465346656530432
...
> Here is the author's post-meritocracy manifesto:
> https://postmeritocracy.org/
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 02:36:45PM +0200, Christoph Conrads wrote:
> The CoC is a political document:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20180924234027/https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1041465346656530432
...
> Here is the author's post-meritocracy manifesto:
> https://postmeritocracy.org/
Dear Eric,
> > The CoC is a political document:
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20180924234027/https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1041465346656530432
>
> And there is no level on which this is anything but bad.
>
> The kernel devs are a very large, very diverse, multi-national,
Dear Eric,
> > The CoC is a political document:
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20180924234027/https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1041465346656530432
>
> And there is no level on which this is anything but bad.
>
> The kernel devs are a very large, very diverse, multi-national,
Hi!
> > > > Your above argument that the Code of Conduct is problematic because of
> > > > who wrote it seems to contradict your statement that we shall judge by
> > > > code (or text) alone.
> > > I think there are important differences between code to be run by CPUs
> > > and a Code to be run
Hi!
> > > > Your above argument that the Code of Conduct is problematic because of
> > > > who wrote it seems to contradict your statement that we shall judge by
> > > > code (or text) alone.
> > > I think there are important differences between code to be run by CPUs
> > > and a Code to be run
Christoph Conrads :
> The CoC is a political document:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20180924234027/https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1041465346656530432
And there is no level on which this is anything but bad.
The kernel devs are a very large, very diverse, multi-national, multi-cultural
Christoph Conrads :
> The CoC is a political document:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20180924234027/https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1041465346656530432
And there is no level on which this is anything but bad.
The kernel devs are a very large, very diverse, multi-national, multi-cultural
Dear Pavel,
> > > Your above argument that the Code of Conduct is problematic because of
> > > who wrote it seems to contradict your statement that we shall judge by
> > > code (or text) alone.
> > I think there are important differences between code to be run by CPUs
> > and a Code to be run by
Dear Pavel,
> > > Your above argument that the Code of Conduct is problematic because of
> > > who wrote it seems to contradict your statement that we shall judge by
> > > code (or text) alone.
> > I think there are important differences between code to be run by CPUs
> > and a Code to be run by
Hi!
> > I can
> > see how that kind of environment _could_ be implemented with the same
> > code of conduct as a base, but [...] I know I
> > would fight strongly against that.
> It is definitely reassuring to hear you say that.
>
> > There is a list in the first paragraph, but the preceding
Hi!
> > I can
> > see how that kind of environment _could_ be implemented with the same
> > code of conduct as a base, but [...] I know I
> > would fight strongly against that.
> It is definitely reassuring to hear you say that.
>
> > There is a list in the first paragraph, but the preceding
In your employment contract there exists a provision where you sign over
your rights to any and all intellectual property, patents, copyrights
developed during your term of employment.
Said clause makes it clear that what you've furnished is a work-for-hire
and owned by the company or the
In your employment contract there exists a provision where you sign over
your rights to any and all intellectual property, patents, copyrights
developed during your term of employment.
Said clause makes it clear that what you've furnished is a work-for-hire
and owned by the company or the
On 24/09/2018 20:59, \0xDynamite wrote:
>>> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or
>>> electronic
>>> address, without explicit permission
>>
>> I need an (explicit) permission to "publish" an already published email
>> address which is already world-wide known because it
On 24/09/2018 20:59, \0xDynamite wrote:
>>> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or
>>> electronic
>>> address, without explicit permission
>>
>> I need an (explicit) permission to "publish" an already published email
>> address which is already world-wide known because it
>> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or
>> electronic
>> address, without explicit permission
>
> I need an (explicit) permission to "publish" an already published email
> address which is already world-wide known because it can be found by the
> simplest and worst
>> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or
>> electronic
>> address, without explicit permission
>
> I need an (explicit) permission to "publish" an already published email
> address which is already world-wide known because it can be found by the
> simplest and worst
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 1:43 PM Max Filippov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 5:24 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 8:05 PM Joey Pabalinas
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 07:31:05PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> How do you reconcile working on a
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 1:43 PM Max Filippov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 5:24 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 8:05 PM Joey Pabalinas
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 07:31:05PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> How do you reconcile working on a
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 5:24 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 8:05 PM Joey Pabalinas
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 07:31:05PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> How do you reconcile working on a public project while keeping email
>>> address secret?
>>
>> This is
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 5:24 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 8:05 PM Joey Pabalinas
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 07:31:05PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> How do you reconcile working on a public project while keeping email
>>> address secret?
>>
>> This is
better to bury a corpse than to let it rot in the air.
This is legally nonsense. The only way I can revoke someone's rights
to
It is not nonsense. Gratuitous licenses are and always have been
revocable at the will of the grantor.
(Yes, I am a lawyer)
Property law 101.
"But this is
better to bury a corpse than to let it rot in the air.
This is legally nonsense. The only way I can revoke someone's rights
to
It is not nonsense. Gratuitous licenses are and always have been
revocable at the will of the grantor.
(Yes, I am a lawyer)
Property law 101.
"But this is
> For example
>
>> >* Showing empathy towards other community members
>>
>> Your pussy hurts? Maybe you should have just accepted that your a boy!
>>
>> I think Linus is perfectly fine in conduct. I mean, this bullshit
>> pressure comes from corporations and other wierd places (all
>>
> For example
>
>> >* Showing empathy towards other community members
>>
>> Your pussy hurts? Maybe you should have just accepted that your a boy!
>>
>> I think Linus is perfectly fine in conduct. I mean, this bullshit
>> pressure comes from corporations and other wierd places (all
>>
>> Contributors can, at any time, rescind the license grant regarding their
>> property via written notice to those whom they are rescinding the grant
>> from (regarding their property (code)).
>
> I know others have already said it, but:
> This is legally nonsense. The only way I can revoke
>> Contributors can, at any time, rescind the license grant regarding their
>> property via written notice to those whom they are rescinding the grant
>> from (regarding their property (code)).
>
> I know others have already said it, but:
> This is legally nonsense. The only way I can revoke
Dear Edward,
> I know others have already said it, but:
> This is legally nonsense. The only way I can revoke someone's rights to
> my code under the GPL is if they violate the terms of the GPL.
this aspect of FOSS licenses has -- to the best of my knowledge --
never been tested in court.
Dear Edward,
> I know others have already said it, but:
> This is legally nonsense. The only way I can revoke someone's rights to
> my code under the GPL is if they violate the terms of the GPL.
this aspect of FOSS licenses has -- to the best of my knowledge --
never been tested in court.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 8:05 PM Joey Pabalinas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 07:31:05PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 7:17 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > >
> > > People can decide who they want to respond to, but I'm going to gently
> > > suggest that before
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 8:05 PM Joey Pabalinas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 07:31:05PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 7:17 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > >
> > > People can decide who they want to respond to, but I'm going to gently
> > > suggest that before
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 07:31:05PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 7:17 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> >
> > People can decide who they want to respond to, but I'm going to gently
> > suggest that before people think about responding to a particular
> > e-mail, that they
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 07:31:05PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 7:17 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> >
> > People can decide who they want to respond to, but I'm going to gently
> > suggest that before people think about responding to a particular
> > e-mail, that they
On 22/09/2018 01:31, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
> How does this part apply to email addresses used to commit code?
>
> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
> address, without explicit permission
I need an (explicit) permission to "publish" an already
On 22/09/2018 01:31, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
> How does this part apply to email addresses used to commit code?
>
> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
> address, without explicit permission
I need an (explicit) permission to "publish" an already
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 7:17 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>
> People can decide who they want to respond to, but I'm going to gently
> suggest that before people think about responding to a particular
> e-mail, that they do a quick check using "git log --author=xy...@example.com"
> then decide how
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 7:17 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>
> People can decide who they want to respond to, but I'm going to gently
> suggest that before people think about responding to a particular
> e-mail, that they do a quick check using "git log --author=xy...@example.com"
> then decide how
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 07:15:45PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> People can decide who they want to respond to, but I'm going to gently
> suggest that before people think about responding to a particular
> e-mail, that they do a quick check using "git log --author=xy...@example.com"
> then
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 07:15:45PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> People can decide who they want to respond to, but I'm going to gently
> suggest that before people think about responding to a particular
> e-mail, that they do a quick check using "git log --author=xy...@example.com"
> then
People can decide who they want to respond to, but I'm going to gently
suggest that before people think about responding to a particular
e-mail, that they do a quick check using "git log --author=xy...@example.com"
then decide how much someone appears to be a member of the community
before
People can decide who they want to respond to, but I'm going to gently
suggest that before people think about responding to a particular
e-mail, that they do a quick check using "git log --author=xy...@example.com"
then decide how much someone appears to be a member of the community
before
Ahem...
Of course, the linux community, like ALL communities, needs more
political correctness, because we wouldn't want others to feel left
out merely because they are wrong. FALSE || TRUE = more
participation and diversity!
>Our Pledge
>In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming
Ahem...
Of course, the linux community, like ALL communities, needs more
political correctness, because we wouldn't want others to feel left
out merely because they are wrong. FALSE || TRUE = more
participation and diversity!
>Our Pledge
>In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming
Rik van Riel writes:
> [...] The goal of the code of conduct is to make the community
> welcoming, and to help people with being a part of the Linux
> community. [...]
That may well be the goal. But the proper way to evaluate policy is not
the laudability of its goals but its forseeable
Rik van Riel writes:
> [...] The goal of the code of conduct is to make the community
> welcoming, and to help people with being a part of the Linux
> community. [...]
That may well be the goal. But the proper way to evaluate policy is not
the laudability of its goals but its forseeable
Hallo Martin,
> What I see here is that a lot of people who are not even contributing to
> the Linux kernel in a major way apparently want to make their opinion
> about Code of Conduct heard loudly.
>
> I ask myself: What the point of it?
So far, the Contributor Covenant CoC always left a
Hallo Martin,
> What I see here is that a lot of people who are not even contributing to
> the Linux kernel in a major way apparently want to make their opinion
> about Code of Conduct heard loudly.
>
> I ask myself: What the point of it?
So far, the Contributor Covenant CoC always left a
Hello Christoph.
Christoph Conrads - 20.09.18, 23:18:
> The CoC is extremely ambiguously written for an enforceable document,
> any behavior disliked by the maintainers can be punished, and the
> level of naivete of the maintainers defending it is suprising for
> such a far reaching document.
Hello Christoph.
Christoph Conrads - 20.09.18, 23:18:
> The CoC is extremely ambiguously written for an enforceable document,
> any behavior disliked by the maintainers can be punished, and the
> level of naivete of the maintainers defending it is suprising for
> such a far reaching document.
On Friday, September 21, 2018 1:48 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 03:14 +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
>
> > I think there are important differences between code to be run by
> > CPUs
> > and a Code to be run by humans. And when the author goes on a
> > victory
> > lap on Twitter and
On Friday, September 21, 2018 1:48 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 03:14 +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
>
> > I think there are important differences between code to be run by
> > CPUs
> > and a Code to be run by humans. And when the author goes on a
> > victory
> > lap on Twitter and
On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 03:14 +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> I think there are important differences between code to be run by
> CPUs
> and a Code to be run by humans. And when the author goes on a
> victory
> lap on Twitter and declares the Code to be "a political document",
> is
> it any
On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 03:14 +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> I think there are important differences between code to be run by
> CPUs
> and a Code to be run by humans. And when the author goes on a
> victory
> lap on Twitter and declares the Code to be "a political document",
> is
> it any
On 20/09/18 10:27, unconditionedwitn...@redchan.it wrote:
> Contributors can, at any time, rescind the license grant regarding their
> property via written notice to those whom they are rescinding the grant
> from (regarding their property (code)).
I know others have already said it, but:
This is
On 20/09/18 10:27, unconditionedwitn...@redchan.it wrote:
> Contributors can, at any time, rescind the license grant regarding their
> property via written notice to those whom they are rescinding the grant
> from (regarding their property (code)).
I know others have already said it, but:
This is
The CoC is extremely ambiguously written for an enforceable document, any
behavior disliked by the maintainers can be punished, and the level of
naivete of the maintainers defending it is suprising for such a far reaching
document.
> In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment,
The CoC is extremely ambiguously written for an enforceable document, any
behavior disliked by the maintainers can be punished, and the level of
naivete of the maintainers defending it is suprising for such a far reaching
document.
> In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:31:26PM +0200, Andreas Bosch wrote:
> Am 18.09.18 um 22:16 schrieb Lukas Wunner:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 02:24:30PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:48:52PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 12:22:43PM -0700,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:31:26PM +0200, Andreas Bosch wrote:
> Am 18.09.18 um 22:16 schrieb Lukas Wunner:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 02:24:30PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:48:52PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 12:22:43PM -0700,
Code of Conduct: Those Ejected should rescind their license grant.
The grant is not supported by consideration.
It dispenses only largess, and asks for no recompense.
It is a bare license.
Thus it can be revoked by the grantor at any time.
His act of grace bestowed, and his act of propriety can
Code of Conduct: Those Ejected should rescind their license grant.
The grant is not supported by consideration.
It dispenses only largess, and asks for no recompense.
It is a bare license.
Thus it can be revoked by the grantor at any time.
His act of grace bestowed, and his act of propriety can
Regarding those who are ejected from the Linux Kernel Community after
this CoC:
Contributors can, at any time, rescind the license grant regarding their
property via written notice to those whom they are rescinding the grant
from (regarding their property (code)).
The GPL version 2 lacks a
Regarding those who are ejected from the Linux Kernel Community after
this CoC:
Contributors can, at any time, rescind the license grant regarding their
property via written notice to those whom they are rescinding the grant
from (regarding their property (code)).
The GPL version 2 lacks a
Hi Olof,
I expected not to participate to this boring discussion, but I think
I need to make a point below :
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 02:16:40AM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Another common counter argument is that the code of conduct is
> imposing what's appropriate thoughts and opinions on
Hi Olof,
I expected not to participate to this boring discussion, but I think
I need to make a point below :
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 02:16:40AM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Another common counter argument is that the code of conduct is
> imposing what's appropriate thoughts and opinions on
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 02:16:40AM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > But there are too many ways this can go wrong, maybe not now or next
> > week but in five or ten years, when maybe a different kind of person
> > is on the TAB, or maybe external pressure is brought to bear on TAB
> > members.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 02:16:40AM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > But there are too many ways this can go wrong, maybe not now or next
> > week but in five or ten years, when maybe a different kind of person
> > is on the TAB, or maybe external pressure is brought to bear on TAB
> > members.
On 20/09/18 02:16, Olof Johansson wrote:
> I would be very surprised if any of my peers on the TAB ever had those
> intentions, and I know I would not have them myself.
In case my references to individualsmade it unclear: I have no reason to
suspect _any_ of the present TAB members would;
On 20/09/18 02:16, Olof Johansson wrote:
> I would be very surprised if any of my peers on the TAB ever had those
> intentions, and I know I would not have them myself.
In case my references to individualsmade it unclear: I have no reason to
suspect _any_ of the present TAB members would;
Hi,
I'd like to clarify that I am replying here in my personal capacity,
and not on behalf of the TAB or anyone else.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:35 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 19/09/18 15:18, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> I'd like to address just this part, speaking only for myself.
>> The LF is
Hi,
I'd like to clarify that I am replying here in my personal capacity,
and not on behalf of the TAB or anyone else.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:35 AM, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 19/09/18 15:18, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> I'd like to address just this part, speaking only for myself.
>> The LF is
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
