[Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC FOR KS] CoC and Linus position (perhaps undocumented/closed/limited/invite session)

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:37:49 -0300
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung at kernel.org> escreveu:

> Em Wed, 19 Sep 2018 07:28:02 -0400
> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley at HansenPartnership.com> escreveu:
> 
> > On Tue, 2018-09-18 at 16:29 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > Em Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:02:08 -0400
> > > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley at HansenPartnership.com> escreveu:
> > >   
> > > > > After the past 2-3 days I get the feeling there are maintainers
> > > > > unsure about how this affects them and I think assuaging those
> > > > > fears might be a good thing.
> > > > >   
> > > > 
> > > > From my perspective, which is probably fairly widespread: we're
> > > > already pretty much policing the lists using a set of rules which
> > > > match fairly closely to the new CoC, so there should really be no
> > > > huge impact.  
> > > 
> > > After carefully reading it a couple of times, I think it has a huge
> > > impact.
> > > 
> > > The more immediate impact is with regards to this wording:
> > > 
> > > 	"Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
> > > 	...
> > > 	* Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or
> > > electronic
> > > 	  address, without explicit permission"
> > > 
> > > When we publish a patch with a Signed-off-by, Reviewed-by, Acked-by,
> > > Requested-by, Suggested-by, etc, we are actually publishing an
> > > electronic address.
> > > 
> > > The DCO 1.1 has an explicit clause that would allow to publish the
> > > email address from the SOB's, together to its redistribution:
> > > 
> > > "       (d) I understand and agree that this project and the
> > > contribution
> > >             are public and that a record of the contribution
> > > (including all
> > >             personal information I submit with it, including my sign-
> > > off) is
> > >             maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed
> > > consistent with
> > >             this project or the open source license(s) involved."
> > > 
> > > But that doesn't cover the other tags.  
> > 
> > I disagree with the strictness of the interpretation: "including all
> > personal information I submit with it" covers all the other tags.
> > Although the expectation is the permission was obtained by one of the
> > people adding the sign off because that's how the DCO flows, which
> > might be a bit wishful thinking, we've always thought that it covers
> > the additional tags for the use case section (d) was created for:
> > national data protection acts and if it covers that case, it surely
> > covers the CoC permission case.
> 
> I see your point. Yes, that places the SOB signer's as^W backs 
> responsible for such thing.
> 
> > Additionally, as others have said, if the tag was added from
> > information in the public mailing list, it's not private within the
> > meaning of the CoC.  I think the electronic mail example in the CoC is
> > simply because it's more used in a github type environment where email
> > addresses are private and not necessarily part of the workflow.
> 
> If it doesn't apply, it should be removed. Legal documents with
> unneeded terms only cause confusion (and this *is* a legal document - a

In time:
	and this *is* a legal document -> I believe that this is a legal document

I'm actually waiting for a legal advice about this under US laws.
Under Brazilian laws (and probably other civil law system), I'm almost
sure it is a contract - if this is a valid or a void one has yet to be
seen.

> IMHO very badly written Contract of Adhesion - as it creates a lot of
> new duties to maintainers and establishes punishment measures if the
> terms of such contract are violated).
> 
> Thanks,
> Mauro



Thanks,
Mauro