For interesting topics. But remember this is a Linux Forum. Do not post offensive topics that are meant to cause trouble with other members or are derogatory towards people of different genders, race, color, minors (this includes nudity and sex), politics or religion. Let's try to keep peace among the community and for visitors.
No spam on this or any other forums please! If you post advertisements on these forums, your account may be deleted.
Do not copy and paste entire or even up to half of someone else's words or articles into posts. Post only a few sentences or a paragraph and make sure to include a link back to original words or article. Otherwise it's copyright infringement.
You can talk about other distros here, but no MX bashing. You can email the developers of MX if you just want to say you dislike or hate MX.
Linux’s move from its Code of Conflicts to a new Code of Conduct has not been received well by many of its developers. Some have threatened to pull out their blocks of code important to the project to revolt against the change.
This could have serious consequences because Linux is one of the most important pieces of open source software in the world. If threats are put into action, large parts of the internet would be left vulnerable to exploits. Applications that use Linux would be like an incomplete Jenga stack that could collapse any minute.
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 no-rescission clause (the GPL version 3 has such a clause: to attempt furnish defendants with an estoppel defense, the Linux Kernel is licensed under version 2, however, as are the past contributions).
When the defendants ignore the rescission and continue using the plaintiff's code, the plaintiff can sue under the copyright statute.
...
The Linux kernel is licensed under GPL Version 2. Under normal circumstances what this license entails is that the code can be freely copied and distributed (and also that the code must be made available with binary distributions but thats not important here). The thing that becomes confusing is that whoever authored the code still owns the actual copyright for the code they contributed. Some projects under the GPL like Emacs have a smart policy where the maintainers will not accept your code unless you also turn over complete control of the copyright. Since you own the copyright and are merely licensing it under the GPL you can technically remove that license at any time.
The GPL Ver 3 has a clause that Ver 2 lacks which dictates though that you may not rescind your license over your code. In a court, a lawyer would make the argument that since the Free Software Foundation(the license’s publisher) saw the need to add the clause, that the Ver 2 allows for rescinding of the GPL license.
That's mostly FUD, when you release under GPL you give the right to everybody to use the code, you cannot retroactively limit those rights. One of the principle in law is the principle of non-retroactivity. Basically you give me a gift you cannot withdraw it later on. You sell something, you cannot back in time and charge more and so on. Yes, GPL3 clarifies that to avoid exactly this kind of FUD, no, a lawyer cannot use that in court to show what using GPL2 entails.
O.K. I guess it's fair game then. I don't believe any of these articles about it until I see and hear what Linus Torvalds has to say about all this in a video. The way I see it is Microsoft pays these SJWs to do this to take down Linux. Microsoft's policy has always been, Embrace, Extend & Extinguish!
I am command line illiterate. I copy & paste to the terminal. Liars, Wiseguys, Trolls, and those without manners will be added to my ignore list.
Mauser wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:08 pm
O.K. I guess it's fair game then. I don't believe any of these articles about it until I see and hear what Linus Torvalds has to say about all this in a video. The way I see it is Microsoft pays these SJWs to do this to take down Linux. Microsoft's policy has always been, Embrace, Extend & Extinguish!
I think what Adrian is saying is that he wasn't even commenting on the Code of Conduct hullabaloo itself.
He was merely stating his views on how the relevant sections of the GPL2 licence should be read and whether developers could pull their code.
Desktop: Intel i5-4460, 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics
Clevo N130WU-based Ultrabook: Intel i7-8550U (Kaby Lake R), 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics (UEFI)
ASUS X42D laptop: AMD Phenom II, 6GB RAM, Mobility Radeon HD 5400