
No, you can't take open source code back - smush
https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-you-cant-take-open-source-code-back/
======
belorn
There is in general two main methods for revoking a license:

1), US copyright law (17 U.S. Code § 203), which allow the author to terminate
a granted license after about 35-40 years. not extremely relevant in software
and the people on the linux kernel mailing list will need to wait an other 7
or so more years before it can become relevant in the kernel.

2) License and legal interpretation. The author can change their
interpretation of the license and how it interacts with copyright law. This is
much more relevant within the context of the linux kernel since there are
proprietary kernel modules that the Linux Foundation members own. Nothing
prevents an author to de-facto revoke a implicit/passive/unwritten permission
for such combinations.

Beside those two there really isn't any realistic method of revoking a license
once legally released under an open license.

~~~
apostacy
I have seen some of my favorite free software disappeared by its creator when
they decide they want to sell it.

Synergy comes to mind, but at least they are making a minimal effort to honor
the GPL. Also AxCrypt. I don't think that creators are obligated to continue
distribution, but it still bothers me when that happens, especially if they
benefited from the fruits of the community.

------
0xcde4c3db
Some developers seem to engage in _very_ wishful thinking about licensing. I
remember seeing, ~15-20 years ago, "licenses" asserting not merely the right
to globally revoke the license, but to change the terms _retroactively_ ,
which is completely absurd.

~~~
zeroname
"Absurdity" is not a legal term, to my knowledge. Don't assume that because a
contract is absurd, exploitative or even satirical that it won't hold up in
court.

~~~
0xcde4c3db
I use the term "absurd" not to make a legal argument, but to suggest that such
an agreement is fundamentally devoid of any sensible meaning in the context of
forming a contract. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that the legal argument would
boil down to the offer of a license being illusory [1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_promise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_promise)

------
jordigh
Wait, I recognise that name. "MikeeUSA".

> I wholeheartedly /support/ sexism, as-long as it is not against men.

Isn't he a known provocateur? Are we being provoked?

~~~
zeroname
Finishing that quote for you:

> ...Since men are now being assaulted as thanks for their ceaseless decades-
> long work on opensource by people who did not put in the time, men should
> /support sexism/ by revoking license to their gratis licensed copyrighted
> code from any project that adds a "Code of Conduct".

Basically, this guy is spinning the oppression narrative, just from the
opposite angle.

We probably shouldn't be focusing so much on _who_ is fighting this matter and
for which ideological reasons, because we're talking about a legal framework.
Those who challenge that framework may well be trolls, but the fact that they
_are_ troll is orthogonal to the legal outcome. That is, you may well consider
Oracle to be trolls, but they're still winning (parts of) their case against
Google.

------
smush
If this is a dupe or near-dupe, I'm happy to have a link to the thread where
the discussion already happened, I'm just after reading the HN comments.

~~~
howard941
Please click on the 'past' thingie to find that link

~~~
smush
So it looks like this was posted but had no comments at the time, but thank
you for introducing me to that feature which I hadn't noticed before.

------
pexaizix
>No, the real issue is trolls arguing that codes of conduct are wrong [...]
Codes of conducts are here to stay.

Calling people who don't want codes of conduct "trolls", i.e. pushing your
agenda in the middle of a news article, is the reason journalism is the
laughing stock of the world.

(Having said that, I agree that you can't just take back source code, no
matter the reason)

~~~
apostacy
The problem with codes of conduct is that many of them contain pro-harassment
carve-outs, for vaguely defined groups like "marginalized peoples". They
specifically enshrine harassment against by some groups onto other groups. (I
will provide citations in the next few hours at lunch if anyone wants)

The Contributor Covenant also encourages and protects policing other
contributor's activity outside of the community, not relating to the project
or anyone connected with the project. This has the effect of encouraging
people to dig through your Twitter history trying to find something
"problematic" that you said 10 years ago.

If you can't be part of a project without harassing others because they are
white and stalking them outside of the community, maybe you should rethink
your involvement. I certainly would not want to work with you.

~~~
chowells
> The problem with codes of conduct is that many of them contain pro-
> harassment carve-outs, for vaguely defined groups like "marginalized
> peoples". They specifically enshrine harassment against by some groups onto
> other groups. (I will provide citations in the next few hours at lunch if
> anyone wants)

This is simply not true. Harassment is not the same as calling out harassment.
Saying "hey, I have a right to exist and be included, stop your exclusionary
actions" is fundamentally different from actions to exclude someone in the
first place. It is the difference between "we welcome your contributions if
you stop attacking others" and "you're not welcome here, leave."

If you believe that anyone seeks to harass you on the basis of being white, I
suggest you might benefit from a deep examination of the experiences of actual
marginalized groups. There's a good chance you're just not aware of the
reality others have to deal with. And there's no way to know without a lot of
self-directed study. No one can do it for you. You have to have an open mind,
be willing to explore uncomfortable topics, and be willing to come to the
conclusion that you've behaved poorly in the past out of ignorance. You know,
take the rational approach to one's own ignorance.

~~~
apostacy
> This is simply not true. Harassment is not the same as calling out
> harassment. Saying "hey, I have a right to exist and be included, stop your
> exclusionary actions" is fundamentally different from actions to exclude
> someone in the first place. It is the difference between "we welcome your
> contributions if you stop attacking others" and "you're not welcome here,
> leave."

I'm afraid it is true. "Calling out harassment" as you call it is incredibly
vague, and harassment and trolling could easily be framed in those terms. But,
even so, they don't even make that distinction. They simply say that you can
essentially do no wrong if you make the unverified claim of being a
"marginalized person".

Look at these terms:

    
    
      * ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
      * Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you”
      * Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
      * Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
      * Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
    

[https://github.com/dear-github/dear-
github/issues/107#issuec...](https://github.com/dear-github/dear-
github/issues/107#issuecomment-182791714)

If you are labeled as "oppressive", your trolls get immunity. And who defines
what "oppressive" means? Simply expressing gentle disagreement or criticism of
a "marginalized persons" pull request can be considered oppressive. Even not
sufficiently affirming or validating someone can get you labeled this way.

And trolls DO use this. Trolls absolutely make a game of turning communities
against each other. I've seen it happen.

> If you believe that anyone seeks to harass you on the basis of being white.

Gonna have to stop you right there. You don't know anything about my
ethnicity, and it does not matter. You need to be able to make a point without
falling back on that.

> No one can do it for you. You have to have an open mind, be willing to
> explore uncomfortable topics, and be willing to come to the conclusion that
> you've behaved poorly in the past out of ignorance. You know, take the
> rational approach to one's own ignorance.

These condescending platitudes are not helpful, and say more about you than
anyone else.

~~~
chowells
OK, I read your link. I don't see anything in it matching your claims. What I
see is a list of dogwhistles being called out as dogwhistles. If you have a
complaint based on actual behaviors, they'll still investigate it. What they
won't do is waste time investigating the formulaic nonsense spewed by people
seeking to attack those who are calling out bad behavior. But pay close
attention. They are talking about the _form_ of a complaint. If you have a
complaint that takes the form of "this behavior is abusive," it will still be
considered.

For what it's worth, I have no doubt that trolls have tried to hide behind
claims of being oppressed before. But I have never seen a systemic case of it
creating immunity from criticism. I have seen a couple individuals who think
they get away with it, but only on venues that don't make systemic efforts to
enforce good behavior, like Twitter.

Do you have a specific example of a troll being shielded by github's policies?

> > If you believe that anyone seeks to harass you on the basis of being
> white.

> Gonna have to stop you right there. You don't know anything about my
> ethnicity, and it does not matter. You need to be able to make a point
> without falling back on that.

Gonna have to ask that you read what I wrote. Like, the very first word. "If".
I was adding a special note in case your situation matches the hypothetical.
If your situation does not match, you have not caught me. I made no
assumptions. I added context for a common case among all likely readers on
this site.

For further context, I'm a middle-aged white man. I used to think about these
issues in a way that would make me say things very similar to what you have
been saying.

In my case, that's because I was sheltered and unaware how many advantages I
had. I was only aware of a few glaring disadvantages. As I grew up, I noticed
there were some groups of people I offended systematically, even when I didn't
mean to. By my early 30s, I had finally seen this enough to acknowledge that
the problem was me. I made an effort to learn as much as I could about why
people disagree with me.

I kept an open mind, I accepted that my ignorance was damaging to people I
didn't understand, and I broadened my understanding in order to stop it. You
know, the rational approach to one's own ignorance.

Oh, wait, those are condescending platitudes. Except they're also a non-
condescending description of exactly what I did.

Heres the thing - your viewpoint is nothing new to me. I used to agree with
it. But then I added more information, and I found I couldn't agree with it
anymore. I deeply regret how long it took me to finally notice these blatant
things about how the world works.

And I've got a structural postscript - I'm not replying to you to try to
change your mind. I'm asking you, and everyone else reading who agrees with
you a bit, to be willing to question your assumptions. You don't need to
change your mind. But at least be willing to accept that some of those who
disagree with you do because they started where you are and then learned more.

~~~
apostacy
You seem sincere, and I didn't mean to be rude. I'm just wrapping up for the
day and have to leave soon, so I can't give a very complete reply.

> For what it's worth, I have no doubt that trolls have tried to hide behind
> claims of being oppressed before. But I have never seen a systemic case of
> it creating immunity from criticism. I have seen a couple individuals who
> think they get away with it, but only on venues that don't make systemic
> efforts to enforce good behavior, like Twitter.

If I linked directly to a lot of this stuff, it's probably blacklisted by HN.
But yes, entire social justice oriented communities have been brought to their
knees by trolls using social justice rhetoric. Check out Atheism+. Trolls
pretending to be offended oppressed minorities have absolutely turned
communities against each other.

I still remember this one thread where someone demanded that someone else with
a "male-coded" avatar respond to their comments first, because they were a
woman and deserved to not be answered last or something. And it was taken
seriously. I don't KNOW if that person was a troll, but does it matter? When
grievances get sufficiently ludicrous, all trolls have to do is copy non-troll
users.

Have a look at some of these Github threads, and you will see unreasonable
demands on people's communication. It's especially egregious and unfair to
non-native English speakers.

Also, I don't know why you're holding Twitter up as a good example of
anything.

