Theodore Y. Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu>:
> There have been those who have characterized the GPL as being more
> than just a license, but also a political statement. And yet, many
> projects, include Linus, use the GPL without necessarily subscribing
> to all of Richard Stallman's positions, political or otherwise.
The case isn't parallel. Every kernel dev knew they were joining a
commons defined by GPL terms when they signed on. Regulation of
soi-disant "hateful" speech and "diversity" objectives, on the other
hand, are a *new* set of claims and norms not entailed in established
practice.
There ought to be much broader consensus before anything like that is done -
and I would say that even about new political claims I myself supported.
Instead, what we have is open revolt from a dissident faction that thinks
the project would be better destroyed than under the CoC.
That should be a clue that imposing the CoC without a lot of public
discussion and preparation was a mistake, and it should be revereted until
at least rough consensus in fovor of some improvement on the old
Code is achieved.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
