From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27EA06C for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:37:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82494ED for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:37:29 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1472398645.2420.13.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Jeremy Allison Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:37:25 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160828042454.GA8742@jeremy-acer> References: <20160826193331.GA29084@jra3> <87inunxf14.fsf@ebb.org> <20160827162655.GB27132@kroah.com> <87bn0dnc6f.fsf@ebb.org> <1472348609.2440.37.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160828042454.GA8742@jeremy-acer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Bradley M. Kuhn" , Linus Torvalds , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL defense issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 21:24 -0700, Jeremy Allison via Ksummit-discuss wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 07:43:29PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > Heh, well, if I called bullshit, I'd lose my reputation for > > politeness > > (although perhaps Linus would finally come to respect me). Let me > > just > > point at that your 0.57% or however you define it, is why no > > corporation currently trusts you or wants to talk to you unless > > forced > > by their lawyers. Without mutual trust, there's no basis for > > negotiation, so all your attempts at compliance are overshadowed by > > this end game. > > In an discussion, when you accuse your oponent of flat-out lying > and being untrustworthy there's no place left to go. > > Let's not do that. I don't think it's helpful. I attacked the argument not the man. > However, "no corporation currently trusts you or wants to talk to > you unless forced by their lawyers" is inaccurate (note I don't > think you're lying, just mistaken here). > > My employer is a large funder of Conservancy (check their funding > spreadsheet for details), and I promise you we talk without legal > requests to do so (even though Karen managed to crash the badging > system here last time she visited :-). OK, I'll modify no to hardly any. However, Google isn't such a great exemplar given that it's currently doing its new kernel under apache-2 and sees this as an advantage. > > Your inability to recognise that there are other methods beyond > > holding out this 0.57% club, and that a lot of other people have > > achieved significant compliance and even community contributions > > using them, is why your statements generate such a lot of strong > > reactions. It reminds me a lot of the 70s and 80s "Mr President, > > under what conditions would you be willing to press the nuclear > > button?" which isn't really a world I want to go back to. > > That isn't the question that's being asked though. The question > that is being asked is "should there be a nuclear button *at all* ?". > > Your opinion on that is clear and I understand why you hold it. > There are many other developers who hold the same opinion, but > lots of them work on FreeBSD not Linux. > > Respectfully, I don't agree with you. Greg and Ted seem to agree > with you, Linus (like me) seems to imagine there can be a case for > that shiny red button. That's a bit of a straw man: I've drawn the equivalency between litigation and the nuclear button, but I've never said there shouldn't be one. I've actually spent a lot of time carefully preserving this option: it's not actually an easy feat in modern America to ensure you own copyright in your own code, but I've done it. I certainly believe that once you press it, you're forever contaminated by the fallout. James > To be honest I never would have put you down as a CND supporter > (but I suppose all those years you spent in a tent at Greenham > Common should have given me a hint :-). > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss >