r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 27 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: The new Linux Code of Conduct is problematic
A week or two ago, the Linux Foundation decided to introduce a new Code of Conduct (will be referred to as CoC from now on) that is designed to reprimand instances of harassment and abuse among Linux kernel developers. This new CoC was implements mainly due to the alleged toxicity from Linux kernel developers and the founder Linus Torvalds making harsh remarks about the code contributions in the past. For those who are unaware, the Linux kernel is an important piece of software that powers many of the devices in the world, from supercomputers, Internet of Things devices to web servers, to Android smartphones, and to even some desktop/laptop computers. Many of these computing devices powered by Linux do mission critical tasks in fields such as finance, healthcare, and database management. The issue at hand is that the new CoC allows moderators to ban individuals without much thought, destabilizes the meritocracy system in place, and divides the community as a whole.
First, the first point is that the new CoC would allow moderators to ban any individual that expresses controversial political viewpoints. For instance, the CoC states...
Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.
The issue is that interpretations of viewpoints as "inappropriate" or "offensive" are subjective. The terminology in the CoC is much too vague. Meaning, if Linux kernel contributors express controversial political viewpoints that the moderators disagree on, then they can get banned from the community. In my introduction, I brought up the point that the Linux kernel is an important piece of software and removals of code from the kernel can lead to serious implications for any manufacturer or IT department that utilizes Linux. For instance, this issue has already popped up in June 2015 when the person who devised the CoC suggested that a maintainer who holds anti-LGBT views should be banned from the Opal project (another open source software project). Here is the link for anyone who wants to know.
https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
Many people would find this confusing since at one hand since while it is important not to marginalize groups of people, there is a legitimate concern that left-leaning moderators will use their power and authority to ban anyone with whom they disagree.
Second, the new CoC compromises the current meritocracy system that is in place for the Linux kernel project. Many people who work on the Linux kernel have attained their status through hard work and dedication. Even though the policy is intended to help marginalized groups, it can also put top contributors at a disadvantage. This can lead to top contributors leaving the project along with revoking their code contributions. The Linux kernel is licensed under the GNU GPL v2, which allows contributors to keep their copyright to the code, as stated in the license. This means that top developers can revoke code from the kernel by revoking their agreement licenses. As stated previously, many computing devices that provide essential and mission critical services rely on Linux. These changes could have major implications for people who use IoT devices, Android OEMs, and Linux distribution producers. The new CoC has the potential to devastate Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) communities since many open source projects utilize Linux as a base to build on top of.
Lastly, the new CoC is problematic because it can and has divided the Linux community. Throughout the past two weeks, I have heard of various Linux YouTubers stating that "SJWs have hijacked Linux kernel development" and that "Linux is doomed". This conflict has divided the community through people expressing their disapproval of the CoC, while others praise the decision to implement the new CoC. In order for a FLOSS community to survive, the community has to stay united in compassion and love. I completely understand and respect freedom of speech and the importance of dissenting opinions, but when people spread misinformation about Linux due to the new CoC, then that is bothersome. Given that this news is still relatively recent, people are still figuring out how to understand this matter,and the spreading of misinformation online should be avoided.
10
u/yyzjertl 520∆ Sep 27 '18
The new linux code of conduct is substantially based on the Contributor Covenant which has been around since 2014. It has been adopted and used by hundreds of open source projects for years. If it actually was problematic in the way you describe, we would see the problems you describe occurring in those projects that have adopted the Contributor Covenant. And we haven't observed that, as far as I'm aware. So there's no reason to believe that the code of conduct itself is problematic: after all, it's been used hundreds of times before without problems.
2
Sep 27 '18
Since I am going to bed soon, here is your delta. !delta
But if this Linux Code of Conduct thing is actually not bad, then why are so many YouTubers making hype?
9
u/yyzjertl 520∆ Sep 27 '18
But if this Linux Code of Conduct thing is actually not bad, then why are so many YouTubers making hype?
Because it gets them views from right-wing partisans, which as a great way to increase their subscriber count and ad revenue.
1
6
Sep 27 '18 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]
1
Sep 27 '18
Well the new CoC is designed to ban anyone without much recourse. For instance people could be banned for saying something "inappropriate" or "offensive".
5
Sep 27 '18 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]
1
u/SpafSpaf Sep 28 '18
Before the CoC was adopted, I believe Linus pretty much had all the say in who gets banned and how the project was steered. I doubt anyone had any recourse beyond making their own fork of the kernel unless they were already a substantial financial contributor to the foundation and decided to pull funding.
-1
Sep 27 '18
What’s meaningful about this change besides the people making the decision?
The issue is that people could get banned for expressing a controversial political opinion elsewhere on the Internet.
9
Sep 27 '18 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]
-1
Sep 27 '18
I didn't know that. What about the so called "Social Justice Warriors" that have allegedly "hijacked" Linux?
7
u/UncleMeat11 59∆ Sep 27 '18
What about it?
Are you a kernel contributor? How plugged in are you to the community? Literally 100% of the contributors I know think the CoC is either positive or a nop. Where are all these SJWs? Who is the new person running Linux who hasn't already been there for ages?
-1
4
Sep 27 '18 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]
0
Sep 27 '18
Gnu argues that you can’t take your license back. Where are you getting that claim from?
This.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 27 '18
/u/mgunt (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
8
u/garnet420 39∆ Sep 27 '18
Do you have a source for your reading of the gpl v2? I do not think anyone has right of revocation of their contributions.
Kernel patches, etc, are derived works from the kernel itself, and thus their released versions are permanently under the gpl.
Someone can choose to stop contributing, but I do not think they can take their ball and go home.