From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.linuxfoundation.org (smtp2.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.36]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11E18308 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 04:27:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from protestant.ebb.org (protestant.ebb.org [50.56.179.12]) by smtp2.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0F7F1DABE for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 04:27:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:06:19 -0700 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" To: Greg KH Message-ID: <20160825040619.GA32072@ebb.org> References: <20160824130832.GA28564@kroah.com> <1472052583.61594.577.camel@infradead.org> <20160824174724.GE30853@kroah.com> <20160824205011.GA31615@ebb.org> <20160824215447.GA5368@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160824215447.GA5368@kroah.com> 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: , Greg KH wrote: > I don't want Linux to be a test case for the GPL as you put it > recently. I am certainly sympathetic to your position. But I myself don't have the power nor will to make Linux into GPL's test case; a confluence of external events already did that without my help. I've been involved with copyleft enforcement and policy for almost copyleft's entire existence. I observe now that the last 10 years brought something that never occurred before with any other copylefted code. Specifically, with Linux, we find both major and minor industry players determined to violate the GPL, on purpose, and refuse to comply, and tell us to our faces: "you think that we have to follow the GPL? Ok, then take us to Court. We won't comply otherwise." (None of the companies in your historical examples ever did this, Greg.) And, the decision to take that position is wholly in the hands of the violators, not the enforcers. In response, we have two options: we can all decide to give up on the GPL, or we can enforce it in Courts. As always, no one is compelled to enforce the GPL; Linux remains a multi-copyright-held project and copyright holders make their own decisions, as Linus reminded us this week in his press comments. I work for an organization that holds copyrights in Linux, and Conservancy furthermore coordinates a coalition of developers who signed agreements asking us to enforce their copyrights. We also have embedded device users writing us weekly asking us to please get the Linux sources for their devices. We have a huge mandate, and we're going to enforce (always adhering to the Principles of Community-Oriented Enforcement, of course). Together, we are a vocal, but significant, minority of Linux contributors and users. There's another vocal and significant minority of Linux contributors and users who oppose GPL enforcement. Greg, I wouldn't have pegged you for being in that camp until this thread, but it seems that you now are. :) Both of these minorities should have their voices heard, and we should discuss and debate issues together. Furthermore, both groups should encourage the silent majority to share their views -- which might bring us entirely new ideas that neither side has hitherto considered. As others have pointed out, that silent majority may not want to discuss complex licensing policy topics in public email discussions for various reasons. IIUC, the KS is designed as a venue for discussion of any issue important to Linux that's difficult to discuss by email and online fora. So, what baffles me, Greg, is not that you and I are on different sides of this debate, but that your position appears to be that the issue should simply not be discussed at the KS. Frankly, seeing the diversity of views on this thread has made me even more eager to sit down in a room to figure out how and why our positions seem so far apart. I'd like to learn from you, Greg, what caused you to change your position so much in recent years, because I respect your opinions and I know you understand these issues very well. (You've certainly given me some clever ideas about GPL enforcement over the years that I've utilized to good effect.) I'd like that conversation to occur in a room with other smart, thoughtful Linux developers in real time so we can all learn from each other. The KS seems a perfect fit. As to this side-thread about risk of "being in a room where such things are discussed", obviously it's probably not a bad idea to talk to one's employer's legal department before deciding to *speak up* in a session about GPL enforcement. And, I suppose there are a very few hyper-conservative legal departments that would raise alarm bells even if an employee silently attended such a session. (I doubt that the latter is common, though.) Anyway, if there there's even a glimmer of a concern, there's currently plenty of time for those who need to double-check with their management/legal department to see if there's a ban on attending conference sessions that discuss GPL enforcement. Linux developers are a smart bunch, thus I don't think they need more instruction than what's already been said on this thread to determine the risk level to their livelihoods. I thus don't see any reason that a session at the KS on GPL enforcement would require different preauthorization than many other sessions (e.g., such as one on UEFI or handling wireless spectrum, which both also have many complex policy, legal, and licensing concerns for many employers in the software industry). As to Ted's point about the purported vagueness of the proposal, Karen gave a clear list of things that occurred this year, all of which are public, that we from Conservancy will bring up for discussion at the session. Obviously other ideas are welcome, but I can't imagine there are any issues to discuss that aren't already mostly public by now -- Karen and I have certainly succeeded a lot this year in removing excessive industry secrecy around various issues (such as McHardy's enforcement actions). If it helps to know this too: neither Karen nor I plan to name any violators who have not already been publicly named as violators before the session. Indeed, I don't expect to say anything I wouldn't say in a regular public talk. -- Bradley M. Kuhn Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy ======================================================================== Become a Conservancy Supporter today: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter