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 EE785904 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:10:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF0222F for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:10:32 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1472577029.2319.20.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Theodore Ts'o Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:10:29 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160830161557.GN3296@wotan.suse.de> 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> <20160828125542.7oejzcbpeozkrq3k@thunk.org> <20160830161557.GN3296@wotan.suse.de> 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 Tue, 2016-08-30 at 18:15 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 08:55:42AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 09:24:54PM -0700, Jeremy Allison via > > Ksummit-discuss wrote: > > > 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. > > > > For the record, I believe there can be a case for the shiny red > > button. I just want Linus, and not the SFC (or some --- as > > admitted by the SFC --- minority set of developers), to be the one > > who decides when it's appropriate to push it. > > > > I've said it before, and I've said it again. For me, this is much > > more about a project governance issue. We don't let random pissed > > off army officers decide when to start World War III. > > If you are trying to equate "random pissed off officers" with those > kernel developers part of the SFC alliance, then I have to say that > is perhaps one of the most stupid misrepresentations of members of > SFC that I have heard so far. Unless of course your statement is > educated, you know all members part of SFC and have asked each one > why they joined. Given that the names aren't public, that's somewhat of an impossible test. The problem Ted has is that a tiny minority of the copyright holders can launch a GPL action under the law today with out regard to the opinions of the majority. So could one person try to set up a permanent fork of linux; What holds it together isn't legal principles, it's sound governance, which is why Ted says this is a governance issue. The analogy is to try to get you to understand, not to insult you by equating members of the SFC coalition with random pissed off generals. > If you don't know then please educate yourself on this as reading > this type of incoherent nonsense being spouted out is just offending > and does nothing to help. OK, so leaving the rhetoric aside, do you understand why we see this as an unsolved governance issue? Solving it correctly is a hard problem, because it involves finding some mechanism for bringing GPL violators into line that everyone (including those in the SFC coalition) can support. James