Re: Opensource.com Zsh article

["Daniel Shahaf" <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ray Andrews wrote on Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:40 +00:00:
> On 2019-09-19 11:04 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Ray Andrews wrote on Thu, 19 Sep 2019 17:32 +00:00:
> >> On 2019-09-19 9:08 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What's your attacker model?  I.e., what do you fear Mallory¹ might do
> >>> without our consent, that we need to prepare to counter?
> 
> No attacker, I'm just curious as to how such a scenario would work out.  
> Were it the case that some commercial entity decided to take over a 
> project against the wishes of the traditional maintainers, how would it 
> be resolved?  I hardly expect this to happen with zsh but such a thing is
> conceivable.

As I said, the answer to your question depends on what your question
actually means to you.  What _exactly_ is it that you think the
commercial entity might do in order to "take over" a project?

For example, if your scenario is that Elvis would push commits to zsh's
repository without permission, the answer is that he can't.  He doesn't
have a username and password for that repository.  That's just like
saying he can't get to your living room because he doesn't have the key
to your front door.

If that's not the scenario you were concerned about, do clarify.

> I guess GPL makes it unlikely that an open source project could ever
> be privatized, still someone as big as Apple could be determined to
> have their way vis a vis some change or other.  Just curious.

First of all, zsh is not licensed under the GPL so the provisions of GPL
are irrelevant.

Second of all, GPL is a copyright license, not a system of governance.
It gives you some rights to the code, but doesn't determine how that
code is produced.  For example, it's perfectly possible for a GPL'd
project to be (or become) governed by a BDFL.