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

[Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 12:03 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> And the thing is, I think that the reasons to bring in lawyers have
> weakened markedly over time. I'm sure you remember back when some
> people used to argue that the GPL was invalid and unenforceable. It
> was a completely bullshit argument, and had absolutely no sane
> thinking behind it, but it definitely existed.
> 
> For the people who haven't been around enough, just google for it.
> That insane argument has been made.
> 
> Nobody makes that argument any more. The GPL is obviously enforceable
> and that it's simply not an issue. Legal departments *know* it is
> enforceable.
> 
Legal departments know sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of
the GPL are enforceable because they have been
enforced in court, and judges have decided they
are enforceable.

There is something to be said for the argument
that the lawyers are no longer needed, because
they have already done their jobs, however I
am not aware of eg. GPL section 2 having been
tested the same way.

This may also be why the VMware thing had been
dragging on for 7 (IIRC) years before a lawsuit
was eventually filed. It appears to be about a
different part of the GPL than the sections that
everybody now agrees are enforceable.

I totally agree that a lawsuit should be an
absolute last resort. However, after 7 years
of attempts to resolve the issue, without 
progress towards a resolution, probably qualifies
as a "last resort" situation.

I do not think the conservancy would get much
support if it were enthusiastic about starting
lawsuits.