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 179FF412 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 22:01:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [74.207.234.97]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5735E2 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 22:01:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:01:54 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o To: Karen Sandler Message-ID: <20160824220154.fhagnm5nijv3pknc@thunk.org> References: <20160824130832.GA28564@kroah.com> <1472048738.7013.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20160824143932.roapysz7wmxof6fj@x> <20160824173949.GD30853@kroah.com> <20160824183050.GA19740@katana> <20160824195759.GA643@kroah.com> <1472073236.9744.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1472073236.9744.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Cc: 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 Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 05:13:56PM -0400, Karen Sandler wrote: > > 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. There are no recordings of kernel summits, but who the attendees of the kernel summit is public knowledge, and there is generally photographic evidence. :-) https://lwn.net/Articles/662699/ It's true that an unrecorded conversaion with 75+ of your best is "safer" (and a hallway conversation with a handful of people is even safer), but nothing is risk-free, and the risks can come in multiple dimensions. I encourage folks to talk to their corporate counsels for legal, because nobody else can give you that legal advice. One of the things which very much worries me is the open scope of the proposal. e.g., let's have "discussions". If there was a concrete proposal to consider, it would be much easier for people to evaluate whether or not (a) it would be considered safe for them to be in the room, and (b) whether it would be safe for them to participate in the discussion. In the ideal world, said proposal would have already received signoffs from a number of General Counsels from most of our employers, and we would be looking for the community assent to that proposal before we went ahead with it. If you have such a proposal, I would suggest bringing it to the attention of Mike Dolan and Karen Cooperhaven who are lawyers from the Linux Foundation (and since Linus and Greg works for the LF, they can provide legal advice to them :-). If it makes sense, they can help with trying to circulate proposals to the various LF members' GC's. There are also a number of of the TAB that are quite well informed in this area, if you are less comfortable talking to lawyers right off the bat. Cheers, - Ted P.S. It would be a lot easier for both the progam committee and your lawyers to evaluate whether or not it would make sense for invidual engineers to attend such a session is if there was concrete proposal on the table, not only because the risks are much easier to evaluate, but the upside benefits of such a session are also much easier to consider. It also significantly improves the chances of concrete, positive results afterwards!