From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E059C6786E for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:50:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD1B20856 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:50:46 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AAD1B20856 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=thyrsus.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727543AbeJ0A2S (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2018 20:28:18 -0400 Received: from thyrsus.com ([71.162.243.5]:41942 "EHLO snark.thyrsus.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726159AbeJ0A2R (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2018 20:28:17 -0400 Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DCF033A42A6; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 11:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 11:50:01 -0400 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Eben Moglen Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, visionsofalice@redchan.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rms@gnu.org, bruce@perens.com, bkuhn@sfconservancy.org, editor@lwn.net, neil@brown.name, labbott@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, olof@lixom.net, clm@fb.com, mishi@linux.com, linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. Message-ID: <20181026155001.GA6327@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com Mail-Followup-To: esr@thyrsus.com, Eben Moglen , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, visionsofalice@redchan.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rms@gnu.org, bruce@perens.com, bkuhn@sfconservancy.org, editor@lwn.net, neil@brown.name, labbott@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, olof@lixom.net, clm@fb.com, mishi@linux.com, linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com> <87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <185b786a2bd6e8d527dca161dc42e4f1@redchan.it> <20181025081911.GB11343@kroah.com> <20181025193901.GD26403@thyrsus.com> <849-Fri26Oct2018091533-0400-eben@harlan.sflc-vpn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <849-Fri26Oct2018091533-0400-eben@harlan.sflc-vpn> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Eben Moglen : > reputational damage is *specifically* recognized as grounds for relief. > > No. Reputational damage is not mentioned at all, let alone > specifically recognized. I have no difficulty in finding the word "reputation" in the brief in in proximity with the phrase "increasing [the programmer's] recognition in his profession". In fact the brief notes " The Eleventh Circuit has recognized the economic motives inherent in public licenses, *even where profit is not immediate*" (Emphasis mine.) And "The attribution and modification transparency requirements directly serve to drive traffic to the open source incubation page and to inform downstream users of the project, which is a significant economic goal of the copyright holder *that the law will enforce.*" (Emphasis mine.) You seem to be denying that the brief says what it actually says. It not only qualifies reputational gain as a kind of economic gain - and thus losses as damage - but cites the Eleventh Circuit as a previous authority for the proposition, and affirms that these gains and losses can be a matter for the law. This disinclines me to trust the rest of your analysis or assertions. I think you are advocating for your interest in the perceived irrevocability of the GPL, and where this implies being less than fully forthcoming about the actual risks in *this* situation you are committing something perilously close to suppressio veri. This is not helpful. I've lived with a practising attorney since about the time she was one of the first-line legal reviewers for the original GPL back in the 1980s - we probably still have the draft printout with her scribbled annotations on it somewhere. "Only lawyers can interpret this voodoo" is not a good line to pull on me when it comes to open-source licensing; I don't buy it and she wouldn't either. Here's another sentence from the brief that I had forgotten: "Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material." - a particularly telling sentence in regard to the current controversy, and one I had forgotten. That there could be enough to win the day for the license revokers - they don't actually have to revoke, just assert that control. Pretty much equivalent to what the the Berne Convention's moral-rights provision does in Europe - they could claim that the CoC is a defacement of their work to which they refuse assent and have a case. I am not at all doubtful that the dissidents know these things; some of the language in the broadsides to lkml so indicates. Which is why I'm trying to get the kernel leadership to repair its unnecessarily high-handed behavior before somebody gets pissed off enough to actually drop a bomb. -- Eric S. Raymond My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.