Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL defense issues

[Karen Sandler <karen@sfconservancy.org>]

On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 09:08 -0400, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:30:00AM -0400, Karen Sandler wrote:
> > 
> > There have been so many discussions about these topics by industry lawyers
> > and executives behind closed doors, but developers have been generally
> > kept out of the loop.
> 
> That's a very unfair comparison, "lawyers and executives" always are
> "behind closed doors" as that's the way business works (and has to for
> legal reasons as you know).  One can say the same thing about any type
> of company meeting where anything is discussed.
> 
> And "developers" are not being kept out of any "loop" here, please, lots
> of us know exactly what is going on here.

I'm of course not talking about internal company meetings, but rather
invite-only backchannels where lawyers and executives are invited but
developers are typically not.  I know, Greg, that you and a few other
developers do cross between these worlds, but most Linux developers I've
spoken to do not.  This session is an opportunity for those developers
to hear about what's been going on in the last year.

> > At the very least, I think kernel developers each need to decide how
> > they feel about GPL enforcement as silence and inaction is as much of
> > a choice as voicing a view.
> 
> That's not fair, it's implying that our current way of doing this type
> of thing is somehow not working.  Remember, we have done something that
> no other group has ever done before, so please don't discount that we
> know how to handle stuff like this.  Sometimes not making a public
> statement is actually the correct thing to do.

I absolutely agree that sometimes making a public statement is not the
right thing to do.  I'm not suggesting that in this session we plan a
public statement or pressure anyone to do so in the future. Rather, I
suggest that we discuss among the Linux developer community what public
statements have been made, what semi-private discussions have occurred,
and discuss as a group how this impacts Linux community.
 
> > From what I see, the timing on this discussion has become critical.
> 
> Why is things "critical" now vs. the situation we had 5, 10, or 15 years
> ago?

5, 10, or 15 years ago we didn't have Patrick McHardy engaging in
enforcement without coordinating with the rest of the netfilter team.
Also, the recent VMware court ruling and its implications are new this
year; the community of copyright holders should examine it and discuss
it. 

> Anyway, we try to stick to technical topics from the developers of the
> kernel for the kernel summit wherever possible, and I think that the
> deadline for proposing new topics has passed, so I don't think there's
> much that can be done this late in the process.

Three people from the TAB, two of which are on this committee suggested
yesterday that I submit this session and Ted's original CFP says:
"Obviously, if new topics come up after that, please still send them to
us!"

Finally, some of the issues here are very technical.  In the VMware
ruling, the Court claimed difficulty in understanding how copyright
holding is documented in Linux.  This is a problem that can be mitigated
and even solved with technical solutions that we can discuss in this
session.

karen