Comment by bayindirh | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bayindirh | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Free software is common property. This the rule 0. It's everyone's. This is why four freedoms exist, and The Kernel is GPLv2. i.e. Free Software.

Compensation and credit are completely different things. Credit is not compensation. It's an answer to question "Who did this?".

He didn't do whatever he want. He was experiencing a problem, he traced, researched it, debugged it, fixed it, and submitted a patch to The Kernel.

If that was only something "whatever he wanted", the patch would be shot down. The bug is accepted/confirmed on The Kernel side, his patch is being reviewed and deemed "stylistically unacceptable", the reviewer/maintainer wrote his own version, and by pushing the fix w/o attributing him, he effectively claimed that he did all the work from discovery to patching, incl. everything in between.

The maintainer didn't have to accept the patch per se. He could have just written "This bug is discovered, dissected and fixed by $THE_PERSON. Patch is implemented and committed by me. Thanks a lot, $THE_PERSON!".

This is basic human decency. I have my name on many bug reports, either reporting them, or providing more information leading to solution of the bug. I have a couple of patches here and there, and I experienced something similar from another prominent project people interact with every day, but I said that "mneh, whatever".

The author certainly didn't because the treatment he got is really bad, and good for him publicizing this, because these kind of people needs to be known. Well, there might be miscommunication and the story can be completely different, but starting the discussion from somewhere is healthy.

> Free software is common property. This the rule 0. It's everyone's. This is why four freedoms exist, and The Kernel is GPLv2. i.e. Free Software.

Just because something is free, it doesn’t make it common property. Being able to use the kernel and modify _your own copy_ is not the same as the kernel itself being common property. The four freedoms don’t grant us permission or rights to alter other people’s copies of the software, so those copies are not common property.

> The maintainer didn't have to accept the patch per se. He could have just written "This bug is discovered, dissected and fixed by $THE_PERSON. Patch is implemented and committed by me. Thanks a lot, $THE_PERSON!".

That’s basically what happened, yeah? The author got credit for reporting it.

> The four freedoms don’t grant us permission or rights to alter other people’s copies of the software, so those copies are not common property.

Of course, but accepting a bug, giving feedback on a submitted patch to be included in the kernel is openly saying "We're willing to accept this, but you need to polish this and that", which the author did.

In practice he got the permission to modify their copy.

> That’s basically what happened, yeah? The author got credit for reporting it.

No, definitely not. They got a "reported-by" tag, which means "the author told me that something is not working, so I did all the work to find why, did all the work to solve, did all the work to implement, did all the work to commit."

In reality, the author found, debugged, solved and patched the problem. The maintainer didn't like the style, pushed his version, and claimed that all work is done by him, except hitting his proverbial foot to a proverbial stone while walking (i.e. discovering the bug).

> In practice he got the permission to modify their copy.

I wouldn’t consider it common property if permission is required. It seems like our definitions of common property differ, but I’m not sure there’s any value in trying to align ourselves on this.

> No, definitely not. They got a "reported-by" tag, which means "somebody told me that something is not working, so I did all the work to find why, did all the work to solve, did all the work to implement, did all the work to commit."

Got it. Yeah I agree this is not the same. However, I still stand by my original stance which is that no one is owed anything, especially when they do something no one asked them to do.

> I’m not sure there’s any value in trying to align ourselves on this.

Same here.

> I still stand by my original stance which is that no one is owed anything, especially when they do something no one asked them to do.

I understand your point, but nothing is mandatory in Free Software. However, this is not about internet points, but it's human decency with consequences.

Strip the event from The Kernel and computer domain, this is plain rude, unjust and unethical. The author says this, and I concur.

First, we need to do better as humans. This is the lesson.

> I understand your point, but nothing is mandatory in Free Software. However, this is not about internet points, but it's human decency with consequences.

The way OP framed it in the blog post, it sure does seem like it's mostly about Internet Points:

    I told him that I would really appreciate if he could accept a patch from me, so that I could receive credit for fixing this issue and become a kernel contributor.

As far as I know, there is no official title of "Kernel Contributor" that comes with a certificate written on parchment. I have code I wrote in the Linux kernel. Am I an official Kernel Contributor? If so, I didn't receive my merit badge, and that doesn't mean any human decency rules were broken. Having code in the kernel is not that big a deal. I highly doubt I got any job offers because of it. This seems as Internet-pointy as HN karma.

> maintainer wrote his own version, and by pushing the fix w/o attributing him, he effectively claimed that he did all the work from discovery to patching, incl. everything in between.

Woah this claim a bit too strong. There's a "reported-by" line in the final patch that ended in the kernel:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220609133245.573565-1-mpe@elle...

Whether that's sufficient is another matter.

Well, no, it's not.

Giving a mere "reported-by" tag to a person who comes with a patch is just too unjust. Isn't it? The patch may not deserve to be included in the tree as-is, which can be understandable, yet dismissing all the research is essentially saying "you're too young to be here. Leave this to grown men, ride your tricycle over there. Here's a candy. Good boy."

I don't understand why the act of not taking a small patch should be interpreted in such a personally insulting way.

It sounds like you are just trying pour oil on a fire.

Would you prefer to live in a world where people are obliged to spend extra time dealing with easily-broken egos because all non-overtly-friendly acts can and will be interpreted as contempt? I personally rather assume people are well intentioned, and let them focus on fixing problems instead of catering to egos.

Or maybe you like playing the ego game. That's fine, but I'm really honestly questioning my assumptions towards humanity in the discussion here. Do people really think I view them in contempt if I don't write a couple paragraphs of words to sooth their egos after I disagree with them?

Because it's not about not accepting the patch. I'm not there. It's about the style.

About the oil: I'm not that kind of person. I'm just defending what I'm thinking right. Also, I know about oil burns. That's something I'd never wish on my enemy.

One doesn't need to be overly, or overtly friendly, or to write long fluffy sentences to come across as kind. It's about the word choice yes, but not in the straightforward way we are wired to think. It's something more subtle.

I write many e-mails every day, talking with people from many nations, at every level in many projects. Some of these mails are novellas, some of them are four word bursts. Yet regardless of the length of the mail, I can convey the tone I want, and people understand that.

Sometimes I need to say no to people, and I say it directly. Sometimes I thank them sincerely. Rarely I write hard/heavy mails, which is something I hate to do (and I don't use the word lightly), but without any strong words, and they go through too.

Being kind is not playing the ego game, and doesn't need extra time. What is wrong is thinking that you can throw words and/or people around just because you don't see their faces, don't like how they name the variables, or you think you can say anything because you're a nerd/geek/hacker/whatever and these features or adjectives give you license to push people around.

Lastly, I think soft-skills are way more important in development communities, because your projects' life-span is measured with the health of the community supporting it. Gate-keeping, elitism, and similar acts slowly but surely damages a community. We should strive to be better humans first.

Coding is easy. Communication is hard.

> What is wrong is thinking that you can throw words and/or people around just because you don't see their faces, don't like how they name the variables, or you think you can say anything because you're a nerd/geek/hacker/whatever and these features or adjectives give you license to push people around.

I don't know what you're talking about. Are you talking about the jerks you encountered in life, or the exchange between the OP and the kernel maintainer? Because I don't see any of that behavior, nor anything that warrants the hostile interpretation I objected to earlier.

Have you actually read the email exchanges in question, or are you taking the OP's claims at face value?

PS: nvm, given your hyperbole at the very beginning ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37677962 ) I probably gave you too much credit for attempting a grounded discussion.

I was going to write a detailed answer to your comment, but after your P.S. and assumptions about my intentions, I think I have the same feeling about my hopes for a grounded and fruitful discussion with you.

All the best,

Have a nice day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com