From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758506Ab1JFNpN (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2011 09:45:13 -0400 Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu ([198.82.162.213]:51060 "EHLO lennier.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758288Ab1JFNpL (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2011 09:45:11 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3-dev To: Arnaud Lacombe Cc: Greg KH , Adrian Bunk , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: kernel.org status: establishing a PGP web of trust In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:50:08 EDT." From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <201110021354.57995.rjw@sisk.pl> <4E88A537.4010008@zytor.com> <20111003093239.GB25136@localhost.pp.htv.fi> <20111003180441.GD3072@localhost.pp.htv.fi> <34045.1317760188@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20111004223932.GA3460@localhost.pp.htv.fi> <20111005201904.GC14406@localhost.pp.htv.fi> <20111005235541.GA4328@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1317908661_11244P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:44:21 -0400 Message-ID: <27959.1317908661@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 198.82.161.152 auth3.smtp.vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 2 pass X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=dagger.cc.vt.edu X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A020201.4E8DB0B9.009F,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=71.62.120.57, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1317908661_11244P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:50:08 EDT, Arnaud Lacombe said: > Just thinking about it, but even if lawyers have been involved, this > has been done, unless error of my part, behind closed doors, without > any public records, so I'd tempted to ask "who paid those lawyers?", > "what was the qualification of those lawyers?", "what was the interest > of those lawyers?" and "what was the interest of those who paid the > lawyers?". At least in the US, the answer to "what was the interest of those lawyers?" is almost always "to represent the interests of their clients in a legally ethical manner". Intentional disregard for the client's interests can and does get you disbarred. Any lawyer who stuck in a clause that was contrary to the client's interest would also be doing so against their own interest - lawyers can get sued for malpractice or (as noted) even disbarrment. So I don't think you need to worry about some lawyer with a pro-Microsoft agenda secretly sticking in a hidden phrase that's actually against Linux's interest. (In particular, it's *really* hard to hide detrimental language in something as short and heavily read as the Developer's Certificate of Origin). And if you *do* worry about that, you better also question whether the people supplying tin foil are part of the conspiracy too. --==_Exmh_1317908661_11244P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFOjbC1cC3lWbTT17ARAkNiAJ9di6HtTzAULAIZX6Z8NKZQY0Y4WwCeLj56 ed3IozfppT9RHfRIwtiD2ug= =zKgo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1317908661_11244P--