
Linux developers threaten to pull “kill switch” - csense
https://lulz.com/linux-devs-threaten-killswitch-coc-controversy-1252/
======
benbristow
I don't see why folk are getting so frustrated about this Code of Conduct.

I'm far from a so-called SJW but to me it's just common sense written down and
formalised.

 _Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment
include:_

 _Using welcoming and inclusive language_

 _Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences_

 _Gracefully accepting constructive criticism_

 _Focusing on what is best for the community_

 _Showing empathy towards other community members_

What is wrong here? Isn't this how any professional should act in the
workplace? Why shouldn't this apply to one of the largest open source projects
around?

 _Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:_

 _The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or
advances_

 _Trolling, insulting /derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks_

 _Public or private harassment_

 _Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
address, without explicit permission_

 _Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
professional setting_

Same here. Most of this is illegal and morally wrong to do inside (or even
outside) the workplace too.

Seems like a few people getting annoyed over nothing.

~~~
jayess
> The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or
> advances _Trolling_ , _insulting /derogatory comments_, and _personal or
> political attacks_ Public or private harassment Publishing others’ private
> information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit
> permission Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate
> in a professional setting

These sorts of terms are impossible to define, so the decision to ban people
comes down to personal, subjective interpretation. In the name of setting
standards, there are no standards at all.

~~~
matthewmacleod
Only in the sense that everything is subject to personal interpretation of
those who are responsible for enforcing a set of rules.

But wouldn't you agree that it's generally better to have a set of pretty
clear guidelines that might not always be watertight, versus an _entirely_
personal, subjective set of inscrutable rules?

~~~
cabraca
I dont see "pretty clear guidelines". I see an attempt to regulate complex
human behaviour in a one dimensional document. it does not consider culture,
tradition and upbringing in different regions. a friendly comment in one
culture could be seen as unwelcoming or even sexist in another.

the same with "Focusing on what is best for the community" .. there is no
single "best" and no single "community". its a melting pot of cultures,
countries and people. what benefits one might not benefit the others.

this CoC is just an attempt to regulate what you cant regulate. maybe just
replace it with "dont be an idiot, respect others and assume good intentions".

~~~
matthewmacleod
_a friendly comment in one culture could be seen as unwelcoming or even sexist
in another._

It could be. That's why subjective interpretation and reasonableness are
concepts.

 _there is no single "best" and no single "community"_

There is clearly a single community by any reasonable definition – diffuse
though it may be. The role of a set of guidelines is to establish what
behaviour that community has generally decided is acceptable or not
acceptable. We accept this kind of moderation guideline all of the time.

 _maybe just replace it with "dont be an idiot, respect others and assume good
intentions"._

Yeah, that's basically what it says in a little bit more detail, and with a
few more examples. So where's the issue?

~~~
cabraca
the issue is with people who will follow the CoC to the letter. who will
interpret something one says so it fits the CoC definition and will ask for
their heads.

just look at the stuff happening to Theodore Ts’o
[https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504](https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504)

------
chx
Sigh.

1\. Most of Linux is written by paid contributors. They won't leave.

2\. Most of those who kindle this flamewar are not Linux contributors but the
alt-right. They also got involved in the Larry Garfield-Drupal affair (which
was extremely poorly communicated).

3\. If I may offer an explanation on why Code of Conducts are important:
[https://medium.com/@chx/a-note-from-an-open-source-lead-
deve...](https://medium.com/@chx/a-note-from-an-open-source-lead-developer-
who-got-banned-from-his-community-due-to-code-of-conduct-22d8f066ab9e)

~~~
Covzire
The alt-right, seriously?

~~~
sagichmal
If you have a better umbrella term for the cretins who think "Social Justice
Warrior" is an epithet, I think we'd all be fine with using it instead. Until
then, it seems to me that the alt-right is a reasonable proxy.

~~~
ArchTypical
If you oppose a group, it's just as wrong to automagically get labeled "the
other group" the first group finds most revolting.

~~~
bigbugbag
the minute you separate people into groups even on false criteria, you
discriminate against the group you do not belong to.

there's an episode of you are not smart about this:

[https://youarenotsosmart.com/2018/02/26/yanss-122-how-our-
un...](https://youarenotsosmart.com/2018/02/26/yanss-122-how-our-unchecked-
tribal-psychology-pollutes-politics-science-and-just-about-everything-else/)

------
cdcfa78156ae5
This is trolling by people who do not understand the GPLv2, and has happened
before. Someone had the "brilliant idea" of "retroactively revoking" the GPLv2
a decade ago (2008):
[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163](http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163)

You cannot do it. The only way the right to distribute GPLv2 software gets
revoked is for a _specific party_ that distributes a GPLv2 licensed work in
violation of the GPLv2 distribution terms.

------
programmarchy
It is odd that Theo T'so, who resisted introducing backdoors into /dev/random,
was the first one targeted by the code of conduct. The allegations made
against him are ludicrous. Smells like intelligence agencies using radicalized
useful idiots to "take out" vigilant contributors, so they can get their
backdoors through. It's worth keeping an eye on these areas of the kernel.

~~~
adn
There's exactly 0 evidence of this.

~~~
nailer
What do you mean? There's tweets in the article targeting him using the CoC. I
don't think anyone would dispute he wanted to use multiple entropy sources.
What are you disputing?

~~~
joel_ms
Evidence of a relationship between the two?

------
otterley
I think the headline is misleading: not a single developer has been identified
who has threatened revoking their license to any contributed code, to the
extent that it's even possible.

As for whether it is actually possible, Eric Raymond has an _opinion_, but
it's certainly not a legal one (he's not an attorney himself), and the issue
has never been adjudicated AFAIK. (IAAL, but this is not legal advice.)

~~~
Daishiman
ESR's opinions are the trash can of open source quackery. He hasn't said
anything coherent or useful in this conversation since... ever.

------
busterarm
I want to sidestep all of the usual back and forth debates in this and point
out something that really stuck in my craw...

> 2\. Lack of CC’s CoC sustains meritocracy, which “has consistently shown
> itself to mainly benefit those with privilege, to the exclusion of
> underrepresented people in technology“.
> [[http://archive.is/o2OzZ](http://archive.is/o2OzZ)]

What is this bullshit idea that the beneficiaries of open source software are
those that contributed as opposed to from being able to use it? Good commits
benefit everyone.

The idea that someone(s) would block a person's commit based on some non-code
distinction, to the detriment of everyone who uses that software...which
possibly also includes the other people contributing to it...is completely
ludicrous.

------
LinuxBender
I have read this a few times, and it still is not clear to me who is trolling
who here. Is this a mix of 4chan, or shills acting through 4chan, pretending
to be SJW's? I thought most people left 4chan long ago.

I have used the Covenant Code of Conduct [1] in my git repos for some time and
I don't see how this has derailed into so much drama.

[1] - [https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-
con...](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct)

------
monksy
This is going to be an interesting approach.

On one hand I'm against the approach because it means that contributions that
have been dependent on may just disappear. (Kind of anti-community)

On the other hand: it gives the people who contribute work to the project
leverage. People who contribute shouldn't be under threat of being bullied by
this.

Let's be honest, people who can just make up the rules about 'whats a
violation' will abuse that power.

~~~
matthewmacleod
_Let 's be honest, people who can just make up the rules about 'whats a
violation' will abuse that power._

The problem with that interpretation is _that is already the situation, except
to a much greater extent_.

People holding a position of power in a community inevitably have the ability
to use that power and influence to affect the community, including restricting
or removing participants. I struggle to see how the introduction of a set of
pretty straightforward rules would make that situation worse.

Indeed, one of the major reasons for introducing that set of rules is for
somebody to be able to subsequently point at it, say "(bullying|privacy
violations|personal attacks|sexual imagery) are not allowed here, please stop
doing it".

------
Yaggo
> A controversy over politics is now seeing some of its developers threatening
> to withdraw the license to all of their code, potentially destroying or
> making the whole Linux kernel unusable for a very long time.

Interesting. I've been under impression that once you licence your code, you
cannot "take it back" (for that particular version or release).

[https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5419923/can-gpl-be-re-
li...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5419923/can-gpl-be-re-licensed)

~~~
wahern
Anyone who definitively tells you that it can or cannot be is not being
honest. It's complicated; it's complicated in all the normal ways copyright
and contract law are complicated, but compounded by (1) this being a murky,
unexplored area of copyright and (2) the collaborative, open source code
sharing model thriving in part based on legal ambiguity (e.g. collaboration
incentivized when potential antagonists can each pretend the law favors their
Plan B).

As an example of the difficulty: U.S. Copyright gives authors absolute
termination rights.[1][2] An author can unilaterally choose to terminate a
license or transfer 35 years subsequent to the grant, but no more than 40
years after. A contract, promise, or some other contrivance executed to
nullify the right is void, just like you can't willingly contract yourself
into slavery. Which is to say, a court won't punish you in any way, shape, or
form for statutory termination; and won't hear any arguments about reliance or
other arguments intended to coax a court to enjoin termination.

However, statutory termination requires notice to be given at least 2 years
prior (but not more than 10 years prior) to termination. There are unresolved
questions regarding notice and its effect. Many observers (including Stallman)
are of the opinion that statutory termination rights are of little or no
practical consequence to FOSS because of the technical requirements of notice,
but arguably that's motivated thinking on their part.

The types of termination being discussed in the context of the CoC involve
more context-dependent questions of law and fact. If the practical effects of
the most clear-cut and categorical route to termination are still left open,
you can bet that other routes to termination pose significant unresolved
questions and implications.

[1] Statutory Termination:
[https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203)

[2] Copyright Office's rules for effective notice:
[https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-10.html](https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-10.html)

------
kaendfinger
Why do people in the name of diversity destroy everything they touch?

~~~
pas
Some people do, some don't. (Of course the True Scotsmans are aware of the
problem.)

------
newnewpdro
More mountains out of molehills.

LKML has been relatively quiet if you consider the number of subscribers on
that list.

There's basically a few ambulance chasers trying to drum up business, and
pretty much everyone involved knows to ignore them.

But that won't stop folks from trying to generate views, clicks, followers,
etc. by reporting on and exaggerating the practically nonexistent situation.

Also, Unrelated ESR story: In my teens my LUG saw him visit our regular
meeting while he was in town for some other event, back in the 90s when linux
was on a hype wave. We all went, as we normally did, to a group dinner
afterwards. He and his guest straight up vanished on us before the bill came.
I don't even know what he came for, he didn't tell or show us anything
interesting. He behaved like a celebrity and forced a small group of broke
kids to have to pay for him and his guest's meals. I don't even know how we
managed to scrounge up the money, I certainly didn't have it.

ESR can go f*ck himself.

------
erikb
I hope so much that we find out what the actual political game here is. That
this kind of stuff happens now, shortly after Linus takes a break, is not a
coincidence. That has been growing there for quite some time. But who and why?
I don't know yet and am happy for any hint.

------
sethish
I appreciate this website trying to reach out to someone to see if this threat
has teeth. But I don't trust RMS nor ESR to know the relevant law, not being
lawers. And I don't trust ESR to be truthful when an issue aligns with his
personal opinions.

------
supernovae
I hate this timeline...

------
xrd
I'm as guilty as anyone of this, and is there anything in the CoCs that say
something like "start by assuming the best of everyone involved?" Is that
possible here?

------
agentdrtran
This is extremely slanted article.

------
chooseaname
If they did this, what would make Linux devs any less evil than <pick a large
company name>?

Linux would lose a LOT of corporate support. You'd see businesses migrate
[back] to Windows. You'd see support for Linux being dropped left and right.
It would set Linux back _a decade_ if they did this. All because they don't
want to grow as a person. This is the emotional equivalent of, "I'll just take
my ball and go home!"

------
alpb
Mods please update the title. It’s clickbait to the extent everyone has to
click it to learn what’s going on.

------
jwilk
Linux developers? Which ones exactly?

~~~
sagichmal
Exactly. Right-wing trolls stirring the pot. Don't give them the benefit of
your attention.

~~~
LyndsySimon
Regardless of the messenger, take a look at the message. What _would_ happen
if a kernel developer were to withdraw the rights to their code? How would the
community deal with that?

------
svrtknst
This is... not an easy matter.

To begin with, I wouldn't be surprised if this is fueled by fringe right wing
interests, similar to GamerGate etc. Second, I am generally in favor of CoCs
and changes that aim to elevate minority groups. Thirdly, it's often hard to
take "we have no problems with diversity" at face value when it comes from
those favored by a lack of CoCs.

All that said - This, to me, seems like a hard call to make. An updated CoC
seems great, and I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of it, and the need
for it. On the other hand, I find the lack of definition and process it
entails problematic. Hopefully it's a "two steps forward, one step back"
situation and not the other way around.

~~~
svrtknst
Not be particularly salty, but Hacker News is not where I expected to face a
slew of downvotes without commentary.

Anyone care to point out what I said that was so offensive, or nah?

------
KirinDave
It's really, really unsurprising that ESR is at the heart of this. He's been
extremely upset about being kicked out of various programming communities
after deciding that his new life goal is redefine the stereotype, "Racist Old
Uncle Who Totally Knows Kung Fu and Probably Invented All Modern Economics
Independently." It's equally predictable that never-been-that-relevant Mark
Kern is rabble-rousing for this, as that's practically his livelihood. In
neither case should this really be mistaken for a wide-held sentiment.

The problem with the project and license structure of Linux in 2018 is that
literally any threat the relatively small number of neo-reactionary
programmers can execute on can simply be paved over by various large
corporations simply assigning more resources to pick up any slack. For them,
ensuring continuity in Linux is both a public commitment and an business
requirement.

In other words: this is another ill-considered example of burning shoes you
already bought in protest. Since most of substance of their work has already
been turned over to the public consciousness, it's relatively straightforward
to continue with that work or to replace it if a licensing conflict comes up.

Doubly so since the actual slice of people who will put up this much of a
fight over an agreement to adhere to professional standards is quite small.

~~~
throwaway5250
I've been reading ESR for decades and have never noticed him saying anything
racist. Can you provide a few examples?

(And I suppose using "old" in this way is against the CoC?)

~~~
cdcfa78156ae5
Here is a good example of ESR being racist:
[https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/816449724127608833](https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/816449724127608833)

Here is an example of ESR being misogynist:
[http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907)

~~~
throwaway5250
I recall thinking it sounded like BS at the time, but the "misogynist" link
seems prescient in hindsight.

