On 7/19/22 01:09, lkcl via Gcc wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:01 PM David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
Luke: you appear to me to be the one who is telling people what patches
they can and cannot apply, and it's pissing me off.
1) please don't you dare put words into my mouth that i did not state.
first and only warning.
2) i'm sorry you're annoyed. Asperger's interactions with neuro-typical
individuals who are not used to the same typically do not go well:
this conversation has all the hallmarks i'm used to being subjected
to (and, frankly, shouldn't have to put up with).
as you can probably imagine in 25 years it's pretty tiresome
for me to be constantly subjected to abuse based solely on
misunderstandings that, with the tiniest bit of tolerance, could
easily have been avoided.
3) as you work for redhat, you should be able to speak to HR and
request Diversity training for how to interact with people with
Asperger's. [or, at least, how to recognise them and not get
pissed off by how they speak]. given that it was "neurodiversity month"
only a few weeks ago you should be able to find references on linkedin.
Hello there. For a while I've been watching this conversation and seeing
how
inflammatory it has become, and this seems like the right place to
intervene,
as I myself have Asperger. I would like to say that from my perspective
it is
you, not everyone else, who is subjecting people to abuse based on a
misunderstanding with what seems to me like a constant stream of "OMGWTF
THE RUST TRADEMARK WILL DESTROY ALL GCC DEVELOPERS, REMOVE RUST
NOW" (note: this is hyperbole, and I am not claiming it is literally
what you
have said, it is simply the general feeling that I have been left off
with after
reading your messages throughout this thread).
David is simply telling you one of the most basic implications of what you
have been claiming, i.e. that if the GCC Rust frontend was to be added to
GCC then it would apparently expose everyone involved in distribution of
GCC (which as we know is a very wide definition) to trademark infringement
lawsuits and even potential criminal liability as you have claimed in a
previous
message. The hopefully obvious implication is that the patches to add
the Rust
frontend should thus not be applied. You have answered to this by
telling him
that this simple statement is somehow abuse, which seems ridiculously
confrontational to me and almost like you are accusing him of deliberately
acting in bad faith, even though I have been doing my best to assume the
assumption of good faith so far. Just as you have cited the Conflict
Resolution
Kit in one of your previous messages, I too know of similar sources.
Here is one
that might help you with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
Are you a lawyer? If so please consider volunteering your time to the
GCC Steering Committee *privately*. If not, it seems to me to be a
terrible idea to try to get the developers to pontificate in public
about alleged legal issues with the project, their implications, and
supposed workarounds.
i'm a Libre Ethical Technology Specialist. i expect a project such as
gcc to be held accountable publicly for its decisions and actions,
and to act responsibly. this conversation will be watched by a hell
of a lot of people and if there are private conversations on this topic
being held behind closed doors then how the hell can anyone have
any confidence and trust in gcc?
i'm publicly and fully accountable in the FOSS projects that *i* manage,
including the full financial records, and given how massively high-profile
gcc is, i expect it to be held publicly accountable to a far greater degree.
While public accountability is a very good thing, I would hope you
understand
that some topics are best kept private to some degree, at least for a short
duration so as to discourage impulsive or defensive reactions. Security
vulnerabilities should be a rather obvious example of this, but sensible
issues
such as legal ones (as the one you are raising here) are also the kind
of things
that seem to me like they should be kept private in the very short term.
Coming on the GCC mailing list, which hundreds of people regularly read,
and making such a statement as "has it been taken into consideration
that the
draconian (non-free-compatible) requirements of the rust Trademark make the
distribution of the gcc compiler Unlawful?" will instinctively put
essentially
everyone directly involved with the project on the defensive for hopefully
obvious reasons. By being publicly confrontational on this issue, you
make it
much, much more likely, regardless of the accuracy of your statements,
that the
people involved will not want to admit any potential mistake they might
have
made, and will encourage them to be equally confrontational in
responding to
you.
Making private contact instead is very useful for establishing good
faith and
makes it easy for those that have been contacted to talk honestly about the
matter, and in my view, public confrontation on things like this is only
useful
if those involved are using the privacy of the initial contact to cover
up inaction.
Note that this is also essentially the policy of the FSF on GPL violations
(see the "Confidentiality can increase receptiveness and responsiveness"
section in https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles), which
seems quite reasonable to me.
The gcc rust frontend is an ambitious one with lots of technical
challenges, but which has the potential to make the GCC and Rust
development communities stronger;
or, if done incorrectly, screw absolutely everyone who ever tries
to distribute gcc or attempt to contribute to it.
Yes, because the Mozilla Foundation is obviously an evil cabal aiming to
destroy all that dare to touch GCC. Well, I suppose saying this will
probably
get me accusations of putting words into your mouth, but I can't really
see any other way to get to this conclusion other than this kind of
conspiratorial thinking, unless you're assuming egregriously bad faith
on their part.
this discussion seems to me to be a
pointless attempt to pick a fight between the two.
wrong, sorry. read again the parts where i recommend a workable
solution that is based on a past real-world case: the ADA Certification
Mark. here is the link again:
http://archive.adaic.com/pol-hist/policy/trademrk.txt
what you *might* be referring to is that i have absolutely no qualms
at all about calling out the Mozilla Foundation's Rust Trademark as,
frankly, "bloody stupid". given their past handling of iceweasel this
should be no surprise to anyone familiar with that fiasco.
i have absolutely no problem with the Python Software Foundation
Trademark because the PSF Trademark does not attempt such a
kak-handed, heavy-handed and draconian imposition.
i mean, for god's sake, the attempt to hide the efforts to demand
that people contact them if they perform any kind of "unauthorised"
patches is hidden in a document entitled "Logo and Media Policy Guide".
this in no way should inspire confidence!
please understand: if they *actually* did a decent job and *actually*
listened by converting the Trademark to a proper Certification Mark
(just as ADA did in 1987), i would be the first person to very loudly
praise them for such an astoundingly forward-thinking strategic
move to protect the Rust Language from harm in a very natural
and logical way.
from me you will always get the blunt truth as i see it. no gloves,
no sugar-coating. no diplomacy, no lying by omission. it's... not
popular, but serves an extremely valuable purpose: cuts through
a lot of crap on topics that people were either not aware of or
were deeply uncomfortable bringing up, often for years.
you might not feel comfortable *admitting* that (certainly not publicly)
but after some [considerable] time and calm and considered
investigation, and once your feathers have de-ruffled, you'll
appreciate what i've done.
It also encourages them to actively do nothing about it, as any related
action could easily be tied back to this conversation without explicit
admission, and could itself be seen as a public admission of guilt,
regardless of how guilty of anything they actually are.
l.
