Or: "Why you should not use "kill switch" option proposed by smdy to protest against CoC"
Hello. I'm neither a great software developer nor a lawyer, but I'm not a novice and I'm very annoyed whan I see this: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9iqr3u/linux_developers_threaten_to_pull_kill_switch/ Or something like this: https://lulz.com/linux-devs-threaten-killswitch-coc-controversy-1252/ (sorry, lazy to google other links) Anonymous posts about "linux developers" who want to kill linux(kill switch means kill linux) are extremely dangerous because some of developers may "revoke" their commits and here is why whis is wrong: First: even it you have right to revoke the patches, it will be linux affected, not the sjws. Second: even if someone claims that you can revoke your patches because "it is a contract breach", it will be you who broke the contract. And the second case is the worst, because I am aftaid it can be used as a reason for other kernel commiters to make their code proprietary. As far as I know, most of linux sources are made by developers who are either paid by corporations or are employeed by the corpotations. What if they own 90%(or 80 or 70) of linux code? They can say: oh look, the essential patches were revoked and it is a breach of contract, so we revoke 90-80-70% of linux source(modern linux source!). The "klll switch" can kill linux. Do not use it! Please do not try to "revoke" your commits. It's not an option, it's something bad people are trying you convince you. Sorry for bad english. Regards, Dmitry
