Talk:US Republicans query Linux Foundation about open-source security

No warranty

I find this letter intent concerning. Surely the Linux kernel is under the GNU GPL, which provides no warranty (perhaps unlike the whatever end user agreements other proprietary systems come with)? See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html where it says "For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software." As far as I can see, if the Linux kernel development dies completely, they would not be liable for any damage that occurs as a result. Gryllida (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Deadline"

I thought about changing "Deadline" → "a", but the letter also says that Zemlin must reply by no later than April 16. --George Ho (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggested headline: "Two US Republicans query The Linux Foundation about security in open-source software". --Gryllida (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. --George Ho (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Questions?

@George Ho: Could we include the questions in the second paragraph of the article? @Pi zero: Would there be a problem with me adding the questions during review? — Green Giant (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: A reviewer cannot add significant content during review; that's completely contrary to the principle of independent review.

Note, btw, we've had to issue a {{correction}} on the space station article. --Pi zero (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4394844 [Not ready]

Revision 4394844 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I think the gist of this story is the questions that they are asking of Zemlin. Without them in the article it feels as if it is missing something crucial. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4394844 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I think the gist of this story is the questions that they are asking of Zemlin. Without them in the article it feels as if it is missing something crucial. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

@Green Giant and Pi zero: Added questions. --George Ho (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4394862 [Passed]

Revision 4394862 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Improved by the addition of the questions. Minor copyedits. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4394862 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Improved by the addition of the questions. Minor copyedits. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Bulleted lists

Just a note. We have generally had a strong aversion to using bulleted lists in news articles. We seek to provide smoothly flowing prose, and are inclined to view bulleted lists as an encylcopedic mode of conveying information, breaking up the smooth flow. --Pi zero (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, but converting to prose isn't easy, especially when copying questions from the public letter. Also, this article uses a table format. Another article doesn't use bullets, but provides lists of bestsellers. I can search for more top-50 lists, bestsellers lists, and other kinds of lists if you're not well convinced. --George Ho (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not move it at the bottom, and then one could mention "Questions asked to Linux Foundation"?
103.254.128.130 (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Moved questions to bottom. However, does, Wikinews:Style guide#Writing tone and structure apply? --George Ho (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with moving the questions down because it relegates them to background information. They are an important part of the letter; indeed this is what Zemlin is being asked to reply about. Green Giant (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You could quote a single question, if that is required within the article.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I found Green Giant's argument more compelling, and the questions are also essential if they are needed. Therefore, I changed it back. Why quoting just one question? --George Ho (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
to give the “background information”, duh. When all the questions are listed below, and one question which is essential for background information is quoted in the main article area, what is so wrong in that? Haven’t we done that for football and tennis and presidential elections?
103.254.128.130 (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Correction needed

{{editprotected}} The article, in a significant reviewing oversight, refers to the lawmakers as "two US Republican Party legislators". Wrong. Pallone, Jr. is a Democrat and also was then. This would require a move to something like "US lawmakers query Linux Foundation about open-source security". Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yikes! You are right. This is going to require a full-blown {{correction}} and rename. --SVTCobra 00:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Done Well, the problem was different than described above. Pallone was not one of the authors. Gregg Harper was the correct name and he had a different position than the article said. --SVTCobra 01:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The last sentence still says, "Walden and Pallone also expressed praise toward open-source software and cited a 2015 survey conducted by Black Duck Software saying 78% of companies used such software" though. Heavy Water (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. --SVTCobra 01:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)