Mixing
Is it possible for Linux developers to retroactively “pull their code†from Linux?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Linux now has a Code of Conduct. In the resulting backlash some people have claimed that developers can "flip a kill switch" or "pull their code" from Linux. They seem to mean that developers can revoke the GPL license from the code they have already contributed and force it to be removed from the kernel. Of course if this were done the effect would be disastrous, forcing Linux developers to scramble to identify and replace the affected code, which would be difficult at best and impossible at worst.
However I'm a bit skeptical of this interpretation of copyright law. My amateur understanding is that Linux contributers continue to own the code they wrote but offer it under the GPL upon submitting it; whoever pulls that code licenses it under the GPL at that moment and that license doesn't expire. That license allows other developers and end users to continue using and copying that code under the GPL. While developers can stop offering to license their code to new licensors, as long as people obtain the code via a chain leading back to an original licensor, it is still GPLed.
Is my understanding correct? Or can developers revoke their code from Linux?
gpl contributor-agreements linux-kernel
edited 3 hours ago
curiousdannii
3,96511438
asked 4 hours ago
Solomonoff's Secret
1162
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Linux now has a Code of Conduct. In the resulting backlash some people have claimed that developers can "flip a kill switch" or "pull their code" from Linux. They seem to mean that developers can revoke the GPL license from the code they have already contributed and force it to be removed from the kernel. Of course if this were done the effect would be disastrous, forcing Linux developers to scramble to identify and replace the affected code, which would be difficult at best and impossible at worst.
However I'm a bit skeptical of this interpretation of copyright law. My amateur understanding is that Linux contributers continue to own the code they wrote but offer it under the GPL upon submitting it; whoever pulls that code licenses it under the GPL at that moment and that license doesn't expire. That license allows other developers and end users to continue using and copying that code under the GPL. While developers can stop offering to license their code to new licensors, as long as people obtain the code via a chain leading back to an original licensor, it is still GPLed.
Is my understanding correct? Or can developers revoke their code from Linux?
gpl contributor-agreements linux-kernel
edited 3 hours ago
curiousdannii
3,96511438
asked 4 hours ago
Solomonoff's Secret
1162
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Linux now has a Code of Conduct. In the resulting backlash some people have claimed that developers can "flip a kill switch" or "pull their code" from Linux. They seem to mean that developers can revoke the GPL license from the code they have already contributed and force it to be removed from the kernel. Of course if this were done the effect would be disastrous, forcing Linux developers to scramble to identify and replace the affected code, which would be difficult at best and impossible at worst.
However I'm a bit skeptical of this interpretation of copyright law. My amateur understanding is that Linux contributers continue to own the code they wrote but offer it under the GPL upon submitting it; whoever pulls that code licenses it under the GPL at that moment and that license doesn't expire. That license allows other developers and end users to continue using and copying that code under the GPL. While developers can stop offering to license their code to new licensors, as long as people obtain the code via a chain leading back to an original licensor, it is still GPLed.
Is my understanding correct? Or can developers revoke their code from Linux?
gpl contributor-agreements linux-kernel
edited 3 hours ago
curiousdannii
3,96511438
asked 4 hours ago
Solomonoff's Secret
1162
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Linux now has a Code of Conduct. In the resulting backlash some people have claimed that developers can "flip a kill switch" or "pull their code" from Linux. They seem to mean that developers can revoke the GPL license from the code they have already contributed and force it to be removed from the kernel. Of course if this were done the effect would be disastrous, forcing Linux developers to scramble to identify and replace the affected code, which would be difficult at best and impossible at worst.
However I'm a bit skeptical of this interpretation of copyright law. My amateur understanding is that Linux contributers continue to own the code they wrote but offer it under the GPL upon submitting it; whoever pulls that code licenses it under the GPL at that moment and that license doesn't expire. That license allows other developers and end users to continue using and copying that code under the GPL. While developers can stop offering to license their code to new licensors, as long as people obtain the code via a chain leading back to an original licensor, it is still GPLed.
Is my understanding correct? Or can developers revoke their code from Linux?
gpl contributor-agreements linux-kernel
gpl contributor-agreements linux-kernel
edited 3 hours ago
curiousdannii
3,96511438
asked 4 hours ago
Solomonoff's Secret
1162
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 3 hours ago
curiousdannii
3,96511438
asked 4 hours ago
Solomonoff's Secret
1162
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 3 hours ago
curiousdannii
3,96511438
edited 3 hours ago
curiousdannii
3,96511438
edited 3 hours ago
curiousdannii
3,96511438
3,96511438
asked 4 hours ago
Solomonoff's Secret
1162
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
Solomonoff's Secret
1162
asked 4 hours ago
Solomonoff's Secret
1162
1162
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
No, but what they can do might have the same effect.
It's true that people can continue using the code under the GPL, as long as they don't breach the terms of the license. Each step of the chain leading back to the original contributor has to have been in compliance at the time the chain linked up through them -- recent violations wouldn't retroactively affect previously granted licenses.
But in order to use that code in future versions of Linux, the major developers and distributors have to stay in compliance. If some contributor wanted to make a claim that recent events constitute a restriction on recipients' exercise of rights, impermissible under section 6, or any other violation, the result would be a great big mess.
Future versions of Linux would most likely excise that code rather than trying to defend against allegations of copyright violation. (Only lawyers win from taking those to court) So the most likely end result would be almost indistinguishable from revoking code from those contributors.
Existing versions of Linux would be unaffected.
answered 3 hours ago
Ben Voigt
1214
New contributor
Ben Voigt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Could you clarify how a CoC could be a restriction on recipients' rights under the GPL?
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
@Solomonoff'sSecret: People keep trying to release their projects derived from GPL under terms such as "no military use". GPL doesn't allow that. A Code of Conduct tries to forbid certain behavior, which for all the arguments proponents and opponents can have, is clearly not "freedom". See also opensource.stackexchange.com/a/2610/758
– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago
3
Those non-free licenses restrict what you can do with the software but a CoC restricts who can contribute to the software - or, more precisely, whose contributions will be accepted by the community as anyone can contribute to a fork.
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
@Solomonoff'sSecret: I'm not saying those are the same thing, I'm saying that they're close enough to create a great big legal pickle if someone makes the claim. Or any other claim that the Linux Foundation itself has violated the GPL.
– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago
OK, upvoted but this answer still leaves some uncertainty about whether the CoC violates the GPL.
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
No. Just no.
Firstly, this has nothing to do with a CoC. If it was possible for developers to de-license code after release last month, then it's possible this month; if it wasn't possible last month, then it isn't possible this month. I'd argue, at least in my home jurisdiction of England and Wales, that it's not possible, because of promissory estoppel, a legal doctrine that says that you cannot revoke a unilateral promise that someone else has relied upon. But that is a secondary issue for your question: the introduction of a CoC has made not one iota of difference to whether such revocation is possible.
The CoC doesn't say anything about what you're allowed to do with kernel code that you receive. If it tried to constrain that, it would fall foul of the free software definitions. It doesn't prevent you downloading the kernel, nor from modifying it to your heart's content, and it has nothing to say about how you should behave while doing so. It merely tries to (slightly) constrain how you behave publicly whilst so doing if you want your modifications accepted by upstream.
Nobody is guaranteed to be allowed to participate in any piece of free software development, including the kernel's. There have always been criteria for participation in mainstream kernel development, which presumably included technical excellence; now, another criterion has been added. It doesn't seem to me much less arbitrary or imprecise than the pre-existing criteria, but not much more so, either. That's all that has happened.
answered 8 mins ago
MadHatter
6,7441532
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
No, but what they can do might have the same effect.
It's true that people can continue using the code under the GPL, as long as they don't breach the terms of the license. Each step of the chain leading back to the original contributor has to have been in compliance at the time the chain linked up through them -- recent violations wouldn't retroactively affect previously granted licenses.
But in order to use that code in future versions of Linux, the major developers and distributors have to stay in compliance. If some contributor wanted to make a claim that recent events constitute a restriction on recipients' exercise of rights, impermissible under section 6, or any other violation, the result would be a great big mess.
Future versions of Linux would most likely excise that code rather than trying to defend against allegations of copyright violation. (Only lawyers win from taking those to court) So the most likely end result would be almost indistinguishable from revoking code from those contributors.
Existing versions of Linux would be unaffected.
answered 3 hours ago
Ben Voigt
1214
New contributor
Ben Voigt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Could you clarify how a CoC could be a restriction on recipients' rights under the GPL?
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
@Solomonoff'sSecret: People keep trying to release their projects derived from GPL under terms such as "no military use". GPL doesn't allow that. A Code of Conduct tries to forbid certain behavior, which for all the arguments proponents and opponents can have, is clearly not "freedom". See also opensource.stackexchange.com/a/2610/758
– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago
3
Those non-free licenses restrict what you can do with the software but a CoC restricts who can contribute to the software - or, more precisely, whose contributions will be accepted by the community as anyone can contribute to a fork.
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
@Solomonoff'sSecret: I'm not saying those are the same thing, I'm saying that they're close enough to create a great big legal pickle if someone makes the claim. Or any other claim that the Linux Foundation itself has violated the GPL.
– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago
OK, upvoted but this answer still leaves some uncertainty about whether the CoC violates the GPL.
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
No, but what they can do might have the same effect.
It's true that people can continue using the code under the GPL, as long as they don't breach the terms of the license. Each step of the chain leading back to the original contributor has to have been in compliance at the time the chain linked up through them -- recent violations wouldn't retroactively affect previously granted licenses.
But in order to use that code in future versions of Linux, the major developers and distributors have to stay in compliance. If some contributor wanted to make a claim that recent events constitute a restriction on recipients' exercise of rights, impermissible under section 6, or any other violation, the result would be a great big mess.
Future versions of Linux would most likely excise that code rather than trying to defend against allegations of copyright violation. (Only lawyers win from taking those to court) So the most likely end result would be almost indistinguishable from revoking code from those contributors.
Existing versions of Linux would be unaffected.
answered 3 hours ago
Ben Voigt
1214
New contributor
Ben Voigt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Could you clarify how a CoC could be a restriction on recipients' rights under the GPL?
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
@Solomonoff'sSecret: People keep trying to release their projects derived from GPL under terms such as "no military use". GPL doesn't allow that. A Code of Conduct tries to forbid certain behavior, which for all the arguments proponents and opponents can have, is clearly not "freedom". See also opensource.stackexchange.com/a/2610/758
– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago
3
Those non-free licenses restrict what you can do with the software but a CoC restricts who can contribute to the software - or, more precisely, whose contributions will be accepted by the community as anyone can contribute to a fork.
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
@Solomonoff'sSecret: I'm not saying those are the same thing, I'm saying that they're close enough to create a great big legal pickle if someone makes the claim. Or any other claim that the Linux Foundation itself has violated the GPL.
– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago
OK, upvoted but this answer still leaves some uncertainty about whether the CoC violates the GPL.
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
No, but what they can do might have the same effect.
It's true that people can continue using the code under the GPL, as long as they don't breach the terms of the license. Each step of the chain leading back to the original contributor has to have been in compliance at the time the chain linked up through them -- recent violations wouldn't retroactively affect previously granted licenses.
But in order to use that code in future versions of Linux, the major developers and distributors have to stay in compliance. If some contributor wanted to make a claim that recent events constitute a restriction on recipients' exercise of rights, impermissible under section 6, or any other violation, the result would be a great big mess.
Future versions of Linux would most likely excise that code rather than trying to defend against allegations of copyright violation. (Only lawyers win from taking those to court) So the most likely end result would be almost indistinguishable from revoking code from those contributors.
Existing versions of Linux would be unaffected.
answered 3 hours ago
Ben Voigt
1214
New contributor
Ben Voigt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
No, but what they can do might have the same effect.
It's true that people can continue using the code under the GPL, as long as they don't breach the terms of the license. Each step of the chain leading back to the original contributor has to have been in compliance at the time the chain linked up through them -- recent violations wouldn't retroactively affect previously granted licenses.
But in order to use that code in future versions of Linux, the major developers and distributors have to stay in compliance. If some contributor wanted to make a claim that recent events constitute a restriction on recipients' exercise of rights, impermissible under section 6, or any other violation, the result would be a great big mess.
Future versions of Linux would most likely excise that code rather than trying to defend against allegations of copyright violation. (Only lawyers win from taking those to court) So the most likely end result would be almost indistinguishable from revoking code from those contributors.
Existing versions of Linux would be unaffected.
answered 3 hours ago
Ben Voigt
1214
New contributor
Ben Voigt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 hours ago
Ben Voigt
1214
New contributor
Ben Voigt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 hours ago
Ben Voigt
1214
answered 3 hours ago
Ben Voigt
1214
1214
New contributor
Ben Voigt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Ben Voigt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Ben Voigt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Could you clarify how a CoC could be a restriction on recipients' rights under the GPL?
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
@Solomonoff'sSecret: People keep trying to release their projects derived from GPL under terms such as "no military use". GPL doesn't allow that. A Code of Conduct tries to forbid certain behavior, which for all the arguments proponents and opponents can have, is clearly not "freedom". See also opensource.stackexchange.com/a/2610/758
– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago
3
Those non-free licenses restrict what you can do with the software but a CoC restricts who can contribute to the software - or, more precisely, whose contributions will be accepted by the community as anyone can contribute to a fork.
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
@Solomonoff'sSecret: I'm not saying those are the same thing, I'm saying that they're close enough to create a great big legal pickle if someone makes the claim. Or any other claim that the Linux Foundation itself has violated the GPL.
– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago
OK, upvoted but this answer still leaves some uncertainty about whether the CoC violates the GPL.
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
1
Could you clarify how a CoC could be a restriction on recipients' rights under the GPL?
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
@Solomonoff'sSecret: People keep trying to release their projects derived from GPL under terms such as "no military use". GPL doesn't allow that. A Code of Conduct tries to forbid certain behavior, which for all the arguments proponents and opponents can have, is clearly not "freedom". See also opensource.stackexchange.com/a/2610/758
– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago
3
Those non-free licenses restrict what you can do with the software but a CoC restricts who can contribute to the software - or, more precisely, whose contributions will be accepted by the community as anyone can contribute to a fork.
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
@Solomonoff'sSecret: I'm not saying those are the same thing, I'm saying that they're close enough to create a great big legal pickle if someone makes the claim. Or any other claim that the Linux Foundation itself has violated the GPL.
– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago
OK, upvoted but this answer still leaves some uncertainty about whether the CoC violates the GPL.
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
1
1
Could you clarify how a CoC could be a restriction on recipients' rights under the GPL?
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
Could you clarify how a CoC could be a restriction on recipients' rights under the GPL?
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
@Solomonoff'sSecret: People keep trying to release their projects derived from GPL under terms such as "no military use". GPL doesn't allow that. A Code of Conduct tries to forbid certain behavior, which for all the arguments proponents and opponents can have, is clearly not "freedom". See also opensource.stackexchange.com/a/2610/758
– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago
@Solomonoff'sSecret: People keep trying to release their projects derived from GPL under terms such as "no military use". GPL doesn't allow that. A Code of Conduct tries to forbid certain behavior, which for all the arguments proponents and opponents can have, is clearly not "freedom". See also opensource.stackexchange.com/a/2610/758
– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago
3
3
Those non-free licenses restrict what you can do with the software but a CoC restricts who can contribute to the software - or, more precisely, whose contributions will be accepted by the community as anyone can contribute to a fork.
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
Those non-free licenses restrict what you can do with the software but a CoC restricts who can contribute to the software - or, more precisely, whose contributions will be accepted by the community as anyone can contribute to a fork.
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
@Solomonoff'sSecret: I'm not saying those are the same thing, I'm saying that they're close enough to create a great big legal pickle if someone makes the claim. Or any other claim that the Linux Foundation itself has violated the GPL.
– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago
@Solomonoff'sSecret: I'm not saying those are the same thing, I'm saying that they're close enough to create a great big legal pickle if someone makes the claim. Or any other claim that the Linux Foundation itself has violated the GPL.
– Ben Voigt
3 hours ago
OK, upvoted but this answer still leaves some uncertainty about whether the CoC violates the GPL.
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
OK, upvoted but this answer still leaves some uncertainty about whether the CoC violates the GPL.
– Solomonoff's Secret
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
No. Just no.
Firstly, this has nothing to do with a CoC. If it was possible for developers to de-license code after release last month, then it's possible this month; if it wasn't possible last month, then it isn't possible this month. I'd argue, at least in my home jurisdiction of England and Wales, that it's not possible, because of promissory estoppel, a legal doctrine that says that you cannot revoke a unilateral promise that someone else has relied upon. But that is a secondary issue for your question: the introduction of a CoC has made not one iota of difference to whether such revocation is possible.
The CoC doesn't say anything about what you're allowed to do with kernel code that you receive. If it tried to constrain that, it would fall foul of the free software definitions. It doesn't prevent you downloading the kernel, nor from modifying it to your heart's content, and it has nothing to say about how you should behave while doing so. It merely tries to (slightly) constrain how you behave publicly whilst so doing if you want your modifications accepted by upstream.
Nobody is guaranteed to be allowed to participate in any piece of free software development, including the kernel's. There have always been criteria for participation in mainstream kernel development, which presumably included technical excellence; now, another criterion has been added. It doesn't seem to me much less arbitrary or imprecise than the pre-existing criteria, but not much more so, either. That's all that has happened.
answered 8 mins ago
MadHatter
6,7441532
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
No. Just no.
Firstly, this has nothing to do with a CoC. If it was possible for developers to de-license code after release last month, then it's possible this month; if it wasn't possible last month, then it isn't possible this month. I'd argue, at least in my home jurisdiction of England and Wales, that it's not possible, because of promissory estoppel, a legal doctrine that says that you cannot revoke a unilateral promise that someone else has relied upon. But that is a secondary issue for your question: the introduction of a CoC has made not one iota of difference to whether such revocation is possible.
The CoC doesn't say anything about what you're allowed to do with kernel code that you receive. If it tried to constrain that, it would fall foul of the free software definitions. It doesn't prevent you downloading the kernel, nor from modifying it to your heart's content, and it has nothing to say about how you should behave while doing so. It merely tries to (slightly) constrain how you behave publicly whilst so doing if you want your modifications accepted by upstream.
Nobody is guaranteed to be allowed to participate in any piece of free software development, including the kernel's. There have always been criteria for participation in mainstream kernel development, which presumably included technical excellence; now, another criterion has been added. It doesn't seem to me much less arbitrary or imprecise than the pre-existing criteria, but not much more so, either. That's all that has happened.
answered 8 mins ago
MadHatter
6,7441532
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
No. Just no.
Firstly, this has nothing to do with a CoC. If it was possible for developers to de-license code after release last month, then it's possible this month; if it wasn't possible last month, then it isn't possible this month. I'd argue, at least in my home jurisdiction of England and Wales, that it's not possible, because of promissory estoppel, a legal doctrine that says that you cannot revoke a unilateral promise that someone else has relied upon. But that is a secondary issue for your question: the introduction of a CoC has made not one iota of difference to whether such revocation is possible.
The CoC doesn't say anything about what you're allowed to do with kernel code that you receive. If it tried to constrain that, it would fall foul of the free software definitions. It doesn't prevent you downloading the kernel, nor from modifying it to your heart's content, and it has nothing to say about how you should behave while doing so. It merely tries to (slightly) constrain how you behave publicly whilst so doing if you want your modifications accepted by upstream.
Nobody is guaranteed to be allowed to participate in any piece of free software development, including the kernel's. There have always been criteria for participation in mainstream kernel development, which presumably included technical excellence; now, another criterion has been added. It doesn't seem to me much less arbitrary or imprecise than the pre-existing criteria, but not much more so, either. That's all that has happened.
answered 8 mins ago
MadHatter
6,7441532
No. Just no.
Firstly, this has nothing to do with a CoC. If it was possible for developers to de-license code after release last month, then it's possible this month; if it wasn't possible last month, then it isn't possible this month. I'd argue, at least in my home jurisdiction of England and Wales, that it's not possible, because of promissory estoppel, a legal doctrine that says that you cannot revoke a unilateral promise that someone else has relied upon. But that is a secondary issue for your question: the introduction of a CoC has made not one iota of difference to whether such revocation is possible.
The CoC doesn't say anything about what you're allowed to do with kernel code that you receive. If it tried to constrain that, it would fall foul of the free software definitions. It doesn't prevent you downloading the kernel, nor from modifying it to your heart's content, and it has nothing to say about how you should behave while doing so. It merely tries to (slightly) constrain how you behave publicly whilst so doing if you want your modifications accepted by upstream.
Nobody is guaranteed to be allowed to participate in any piece of free software development, including the kernel's. There have always been criteria for participation in mainstream kernel development, which presumably included technical excellence; now, another criterion has been added. It doesn't seem to me much less arbitrary or imprecise than the pre-existing criteria, but not much more so, either. That's all that has happened.
answered 8 mins ago
MadHatter
6,7441532
edited 3 mins ago
answered 8 mins ago
MadHatter
6,7441532
answered 8 mins ago
MadHatter
6,7441532
answered 8 mins ago
MadHatter
6,7441532
6,7441532
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7375%2fis-it-possible-for-linux-developers-to-retroactively-pull-their-code-from-linu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password