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

[Karen Sandler <karen@sfconservancy.org>]

On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 15:57 -0400, Greg KH wrote:

> When someone involved in a legal suit talks to other people about it,
> those other people, in some countries/jurisdictions, can then be called
> in to testify / be disposed as part of that suit by the other member of
> it.

Perhaps I am confused - are there recordings of kernel summit sessions?
Is attendance recorded? I don't see how participating in a closed door
discussion here by folks who want to do so is any different risk-wise
than discussions happening behind other closed doors. 

It's true that someone can be called (by subpoena or other mechanisms in
various jurisdictions) to be deposed, often whether or not they are
disposed to doing so :) 

But I urge caution - you stated in an earlier email which is publicly
archived:

> lots of us know exactly what is going on here.  

Unless I've misunderstood how the kernel summit works, I think an
unrecorded invitation only conversation is much lower risk than a
substantive discussion in writing, which is why I propose it. 

I note that many developers have a personal stake in the kernel, and not
a lot of places to have these discussions. One of the reasons I'm so
dedicated to Conservancy's coalition, enforcing pursuant to stated
principles and am resigned to bringing last resort law suits is that
otherwise these issues will get decided in law suits between companies.
There, GPL interpretation will be collateral damage.

I think we should start the session by explaining possible risks for
those attending and encouraging them to seek legal counsel, which
obviously this session won't provide.

karen