Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] GLEP 76: Copyright Policy [v4]

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Kent Fredric wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:13:30 -0400
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:

>> I think there are other arguments to be made against anonymity.

> Pseudonymity is hardly anything like anonymity.

Both serve the same purpose, namely to conceal your true identity.
This doesn't go well together with a sign-off which is a legal
statement.

> Creating a pseudonym requires much work, and its a constructed
> "persona" that is a public representation of your natural person.

> Just like a real person, a pseudonym requires establishing networks of
> trust between peers.

> And you don't need to know my physical identity in order for me to
> prove, when you meet me, that my physical identity is the owner of the
> pseudonym.

> If pseudonymity is forbidden, significant contributors of opensource
> projects would have to cease existing, among, but not limited to:

>  _why of Ruby ( who disappeared entirely from opensource when people
>  started leaking his true name )

>  Chromatic ( The author of the Modern Perl book, who has respectable
>  involvement in both Perl5 and Perl6 )

> Its all good to talk about "openness", but forbidding pseudonymity on
> this basis is nearly forbidding privacy, because you're tempting that
> whole "why do you need privacy if you've got nothing to hide" mentality.

> Lets say for example you have a job, and your employer is a dick who
> doesn't understand how software works, and will make your life unduely
> miserable if they find you out in the real world contributing to
> opensource in your free time, despite having no legal right to
> persecute you as such.

> You're not doing anything untoward, but your employer's braindead
> mentality conspires with this policies braindead mentality to forbid
> you from contributing for no good reason.

> Your options become "quit your job" or "quit contributing".

> And you're not actually achieving any real "openness" as a result of
> this insanity, you're just making the lives of people who have
> legitimate grounds for pseudonymity, harder.

> And have people forgotten 'doxxing' is a thing? And in some cases
> having your real identity out there in the real world simply serves as
> a vector for undue harassment? Even if everything you do is above
> board, that doesn't stop busy-bodies deciding you're conflicting with
> their distorted sense of morality and using that as grounds to
> persecute you.

> Say for example you present opinions in favour of something that is not
> politically popular where you live ( say you're a gay rights activist,
> but live in russia ). You're known by the same pseudonym all over
> opensource, but your real name is not published.

> And then, this policy comes around, and you have a choice: either keep
> using a pseudonym, or tempt associating that pseudonym with your real
> self, which potentially invites significant negative social
> consequences.

> I don't think these sorts of "expose yourself to the elements for all
> to attack" behaviours are something Gentoo should be encouraging under
> the banner of openness.

Not sure how all that is relevant for the v4 update. The real name was
already required in v3, which has been accepted by both Council and
Trustees.

v4 is merely a clarification that rules for copyright notice (where a
legal entity can be listed) and sign-off (which must be by a natural
person) are different.

Ulrich