Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU copyright assignment

[Thomas Lord]

    > From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>

    > I'm not sure who's actually complaining about what in this thread, but 
just
    > in case people are getting upset over the above:

    > It's a matter of privacy -- contributing code anonymously seems like a
    > perfectly reasonable desire for some people (Bill Gates' secret Emacs
    > hacks :-) 

[I wouldn't be surprised.  He still seems like a geek, at heart,
judging by his public image.  In some sense, he strikes me as a tragic
figure and, consequently, being one who likes to cheer for underdogs
-- I look forward to seeing how he continues to spend all his money
and how he continues to exploit one of his few freedoms: tweaking his
formally assigned role within MSFT.  The company may very well be pure
evil.  The man seems, imo, at worst, a bit confused and conflicted yet
proactively trying to do some substantial good that is distinct from
what the company does.  Wouldn't you?  So I don't think it's a stretch
to imagine him logging into IRC as joe_random_hacker and having some
unadulterated pure fun of the sort that comes from simply "making
improvements".  Wouldn't you?  One funny thing about all the
anti-linux fud that oozes out of that campus: it's hard to believe
anyone would spout 85% of that crap with a straight face, isn't it?
Well, yeah, it is hard to believe and any fool should know that: and
that's significant in understanding where the particular fools
spouting it must be coming from.  Welcome to the "reading between the
lines" world, kids.  It's that (not insignificant) remaining 15% that
keeps them in (legitimate, sigh) business (for now).   And if you want
to kvetch about that 15% -- hmm, well, there oughta be a forum in
which you could address the corpus of free software business (and
business division) executives.....]

    > and FSF should respect that (which apparently they do).
    > Indeed, this should be the default.

I disagree that it should be the default.  To make anonymous
contribution the default is to remove a degree of social and legal
accountability.   Yes, the GPL disclaimer of warranty places important
and realistic limits on that accountability --- but it doesn't
eliminate the need for accountability.

If *you* want to enable anonymous code contributions: by all means, do
so!  Set up an "inbox" for them and shepherd them to their intended
destinations.   But then the accountability stops with you.  You will
be like a journalist:  in the event that the history of a contribution
becomes important, the buck stops (perhaps temporarily) with you ---
will you reveal your sources or will you take the Contempt of Court
conviction in return for protecting them?


    > Morever, the FSF has no duty to make it easy for 3rd parties to
    > work around the GPL!

    > [If the maintainer of the project doesn't like people
    > contributing anonymously, they can easily enforce that, while
    > they are the maintainer.]

I don't and, as maintainer, I'm taking steps to make it less possible.
(Other than through intermediaries.  If Miles submits a change saying
"I got this from a high-ranking official in the Gov't of Denmark, who
wishes to remain anonymous...." --- miles' representation (since miles
is a known good guy) that he has the right to assign the code should
be good enough, at least until and unless some court or other asks to
probe more deeply --- and in that event, the ball is in miles' court.)

I'm all in favor of supporting the "Chinese dissendents" of the world
(even those from the UK or the US) -- but I think there are right and
wrong ways, better and worse ways to do it.   Personal sponsorship --
a personal relationship, however tentative -- with some 3rd party
willing to accept and forward dissident contributions: i think that is
a _better_ way to do it.

-t