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

From: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL defense issues
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:58:53 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160826235853.GA6898@jra3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160826230236.yky53kd5k4632ftd@thunk.org>

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 07:02:36PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
> Ah, but *which* developers?  There are a huge number of entities who
> own copyrights in the Linux kernel.  Does the Conservancy get to pick
> and choose which developers they will listen to?  What about the
> companies that own copyright in the Linux kernel, such as Red Hat,
> IBM, Intel, Google, and others?  Do they get a seat at the table?

It's pretty clear that this applies to individual copyright holders who
have joined Conservancy's GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers,
not corporations with their own legal department and lawyers who can
make decisions about compliance for themselves.

Even closer to my analogy of a union than I originally thought,
actually :-).

By definition these are developers who agree with the published
"Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement" document, which
does a good job of setting out when and how enforcement should be
handled.

> What about Linus's opinions?  Is the Conservancy going to at least ask
> the major copyright holders whether they are OK with a lawsuit before
> going ahead, and stop if they say No?  Or so long as you can find some
> number of developers who say, "go for it!" you'll start filing the
> paperwork at the courthouse?

Can you describe the conditions you personally would feel justify
filing a lawsuit over GPL non-compliance ?

Even if you reply "never" that would be a good data point to understand
your opinions on this.

> There have been at least some representation made by Conservancy staff
> that appear to denote that they have their set of developers and that
> they are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of what
> other copyright holders might think.  Perhaps it might be
> understandable why some might feel that your term of "rogue actor"
> might actually be appropriate?

If following this:

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html

means you are a "rogue actor", then I question your understanding
of the language.