From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11261F403 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2018 20:07:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751183AbeFCUHp (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jun 2018 16:07:45 -0400 Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:58914 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750952AbeFCUHp (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jun 2018 16:07:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thunk.org; s=ef5046eb; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=QRElOr3k4eNy7l0Ze20UKhAudFmhaD0OCTNDRghPi+E=; b=EHIeT8UqRW39XDsb5gMpk1nmOT hEtuKv/SJ1cNQuU6rVyIqYo4VyV8yg/CHmsDPOOR2O8pZAnA+rDO79WgE+G0jAl/jfUPLlMl3bDkE ZNssmyYJ1OBUOoqf9r0j8x9OqcIVvyI1c3S6lro8KBkimc2zHBsBtbpy2Wwcq2s87Px8=; Received: from root (helo=callcc.thunk.org) by imap.thunk.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fPZHw-0005qo-OQ; Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:07:40 +0000 Received: by callcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id AF1917A60A6; Sun, 3 Jun 2018 16:07:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 16:07:39 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" To: Peter Backes Cc: Philip Oakley , =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C6var_Arnfj=F6r=F0?= Bjarmason , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: GDPR compliance best practices? Message-ID: <20180603200739.GC1750@thunk.org> References: <20180603092736.GA5510@helen.PLASMA.Xg8.DE> <87vab087y2.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20180603112557.GA6564@helen.PLASMA.Xg8.DE> <87tvqk81qp.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20180603141801.GA8898@helen.PLASMA.Xg8.DE> <6BE308009FFA4CCDB5B3B47C2AC53E20@PhilipOakley> <20180603174617.GA10900@helen.PLASMA.Xg8.DE> <20180603181807.GB1750@thunk.org> <20180603191107.GA12182@helen.PLASMA.Xg8.DE> <20180603192417.GA12416@helen.PLASMA.Xg8.DE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180603192417.GA12416@helen.PLASMA.Xg8.DE> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 09:24:17PM +0200, Peter Backes wrote: > > He said: It would be a tyranny of lawyers. > > Let's not have a tyranny of lawyers. Let us, the engineers and hackers, > exercise the necessary control over those pesky lawyers by defining and > redefining the state of the art in technology, and prevent them from > defining it by themselves. For a hammer, everything looks like a nail. > What is the better options: To suggest people to pay for legal advice > by lawyers, who only offer lengthy disclaimers and such for bypassing > the right to be forgotten, or simply discuss technical changes for git > which enable its easy implementation, without legal excuses for not > doing supporting it? Why don't you try to implement your proposal then, and then benchmark it. After you find out how much of a performance disaster it's going to be, especially for large git repos, we can discuss who is being tyrannical. It may very well be that different people and companies will get different legal advice, and one of the interesting things about many git repos for open source project is that it is not owned by any one company. A change in the git repo format is one that has to be adopted by the entire open source project, and if a portion of the community isn't interesting in paying the overhead cost, and sticks with the existing git repo format, I wonder what the "imperialistic" (your word, not mine) EU will do --- try to lock up or sue everyone from outside the EU that refuses to pay the 2x-10x performance overhead and sticks with the original repo format, such that anyone who wants to interoperate has to send git pushes in the orignial format? But in any case, way don't you send a patch and we can discuss? As the old saying goes, "code talks, bullshit walks". :-) Regards, - Ted