The Linux Foundation's "sigstore" project [LWN.net]

The Linux Foundation's "sigstore" project

Posted Mar 10, 2021 20:47 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
In reply to: The Linux Foundation's "sigstore" project by jebba
Parent article: The Linux Foundation's "sigstore" project

> Just "Ideally"? Isn't it required?

A requirement is meaningless unless it is enforced. I doubt the authors care enough to bother.

to post comments

The Linux Foundation's "sigstore" project

Posted Mar 11, 2021 1:06 UTC (Thu) by jebba (guest, #4439) [Link] (9 responses)

You think all 283 contributors (according to github) don't care? That's quite an assumption. And that allows an exemption?

The Linux Foundation's "sigstore" project

Posted Mar 11, 2021 2:55 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (8 responses)

> You think all 283 contributors (according to github) don't care? That's quite an assumption. And that allows an exemption?

Given how many websites do this and how often a requirement to bundle a license is enforced, it is a pretty mundane assumption. Also most of the contributors in a project with a long tail has a few patches each that fixed a bug or added a feature they wanted and moved on, leaving a much smaller number of contributors doing bulk of the work and they can either spend their limited time improving the library or enforcing a licensing term. In legal terms, there isn't an exception. In practice, this sort of licensing requirement is often overlooked and questioning me isn't going to change that one bit.

The Linux Foundation's "sigstore" project

Posted Mar 11, 2021 17:14 UTC (Thu) by jebba (guest, #4439) [Link] (7 responses)

So since they are too small and unlikely to be able to fight the Linux Foundation's lawyers, the violation is just fine. Got it.

The Linux Foundation's "sigstore" project

Posted Mar 11, 2021 17:20 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (5 responses)

> So since they are too small and unlikely to be able to fight the Linux Foundation's lawyers, the violation is just fine. Got it.

Complete mischaracterization of what I said. Try again.

The Linux Foundation's "sigstore" project

Posted Mar 11, 2021 17:30 UTC (Thu) by jebba (guest, #4439) [Link] (4 responses)

The Linux Foundation is big enough to overlook violating others' licenses and it is a common practice. Better?

The Linux Foundation's "sigstore" project

Posted Mar 11, 2021 17:34 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (3 responses)

> The Linux Foundation is big enough to overlook violating others' licenses and it is a common practice. Better?

Nope. I never talked about the Linux Foundation at all.

The Linux Foundation's "sigstore" project

Posted Mar 11, 2021 17:38 UTC (Thu) by jebba (guest, #4439) [Link] (2 responses)

OK, how about the corporate masters you routinely shill for violate free software developers' licenses regularly, so it doesn't matter because the community can't do anything about it.

Can we end this here, please?

Posted Mar 11, 2021 17:45 UTC (Thu) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]

This does not seem a productive use of anyone's time.

Let's just stop this here, please.

thanks,

jake

The Linux Foundation's "sigstore" project

Posted Mar 11, 2021 17:56 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

You seem very confused. I have zero association whatsoever with Linux Foundation nor do I work for any organization associated with it. I do have some experience getting free software licensing issued resolved as a volunteer distro package maintainer and developer for several years and that's the perspective I am sharing here. The enforcement of licensing requirements if the authors of the library care enough to do it has to initiated by them. I don't see any evidence at all for that. That's my point.

The Linux Foundation's "sigstore" project

Posted Mar 11, 2021 18:20 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

Can you please stop your crusade?

This is not Slashdot.