Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8c18dcc5-9028-672f-1449-359ac3d73592@petrovitsch.priv.at>
References: <e223b198-af0e-123d-49bf-fad7e0f9126e@cantab.net>
 <20180919081812.020f19e3@lwn.net> <72dadc76-44fe-ecb5-e142-0a9129082c93@cantab.net>
 <CAOesGMjgo5zwKvsbi8txGQbvFHR2N7xKphzhTSGOrruN3+RC-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <93b77a9a-12c3-6f7d-d2c3-0e0d7875a28b@cantab.net> <589966d9cd0ddccc88f33fcb7975bb4464be7696.camel@surriel.com>
 <87zhwbj8xe.fsf@redhat.com> <CAMjeLr-mWag=iO=CoNHeK9pkCu4y6vZUp03_zpJOG+e=n85j+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180921231545.GC2966@thunk.org> <CAKON4Oy3=7H+9WxzK-xK=T7t7rN7L3_PsJ+cdUWTjiKN=BGSRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d364f33b-fbb4-57e0-78f5-302cd5c9050f@petrovitsch.priv.at>
 <CAMjeLr-a4cCrs0cF0aBRoeeXXLwiM835BXqhP9ZoeLB8=w=YKw@mail.gmail.com> <8c18dcc5-9028-672f-1449-359ac3d73592@petrovitsch.priv.at>
From:   "\\0xDynamite" <dreamingforward@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:14:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMjeLr-j1XhZJgcvsP5z6SHCDmbUA=rMyfvQpX40qKBK+2ojbw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.
To:     Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at>
Cc:     "jonsmirl@gmail.com" <jonsmirl@gmail.com>,
        Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, fche@redhat.com,
        riel@surriel.com, ec429@cantab.net,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

>> The notion of being "published" means at least these two things:  1)
>
> Where exactly - URL? - is that notion defined?

I'm giving you the most sensible definition, from the point of view of
a Doctor of Law.  I have not seen a real definition, so I'm giving you
one.

> Especially the intention is IMHO not necessary - just the fact if it
> happened (and I don't think we want to discuss legal stuff about "X
> broke into my home, stole and published my work" - the patent world has
> the same problem).

No, you must have the intention.  If you have a copy of your new book
on your computer, but someone steals it and prints it -- it is not a
"published" work.

And there is no URL.  You can take my word for it, along with my
credentials, or you can ignore it.

>> So, is code a *published* item?  Most of the public can't read it.
>
> I cannot read (or understand) neither Russian nor Chinese nor almost any
> natural (let alone dead) languages of the world. I'm pretty sure that
> I'm not the only one;-)
> Does that make Russian literature non-public? I don't think so ...

You confuse the issue.  My definition included "intended for the
public".  But it isn't clear that open source code is intended for the
public -- it is intended for those who code or wish to.

Past your inflammatory remarks, I withdraw any further commentary.

Mark Janssen, JD