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

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:02:10 -0700
Jeremy Allison via Ksummit-discuss
<ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 06:26:55PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > Again, when the lawyers get involved, you have lost.  I know you feel
> > that you have to get lawyers involved to "win" the last bit of a fight,
> > but really, that's pointless, because you just lost.  
> 
> This seems to be your answer to the question:
> 
> "Can you describe the conditions you personally would feel justify
> filing a lawsuit over GPL non-compliance ?"
> 
> and your answer is "never".
> 
> That's a valid answer, and I respect that.
> 
> However, other Linux devs feel differently as they joined the
> Conservancy GPL Compliance Project For Linux Developers. There
> are licenses that embody the "no consequence for non compliance"
> attitude, the most popular being the BSD or MIT licenses of course.
> 
> 

[...]

> You now appear to want to change the conditions under which
> most contributors added code - to one that has no legal
> penalties for non-compliance with the license.
> 
> If you really want that I'd genuinely be interested in you
> making such a proposal to the Linux kernel developers and
> askng them to change the license. Not being a kernel developer
> (other than some small cifsfs changes) I have no skin in the
> game but I'd love to see the results of that vote, I think
> it would be fascinating (and I give no predictions as to which
> way that vote would go).

Who can predict that? Nobody ever expected Brexit to pass, right? ;-)

Anyway, if you ask 10 Linux kernel developers how they feel about their
contributions to the kernel and the GPL, you'll get 10 different
answers. The Linux kernel is owned by several copyright owners, and
thus, everyone has the ability to choose how they will respond to
non-compliance. Some may want to have the Conservancy to support them,
others may not. It's really up to them. Obviously Linus and Greg choose
not to. But they can't control what others may do.

Karen handed me a contract (again), and I still haven't had time to
read it (lots of personal matters at hand at the moment). I wont know
if I'll sign it till I've fully read it.

Personally, I believe the GPL has been the reason for the success of
Linux, and yes, part of that is that people don't want to be sued for
non-compliance. But copyright isn't the same as a trademark where one
must defend it when an issues is known (at least in the US). Greg and
Linus feel that diplomacy is the best method for getting companies to
come around. But that takes time. Lawsuits are similar to going to
war, and although war has faster results, usually those results do not
end up as well as diplomacy would have in the long run.

I'm not sure Greg's answer is really "never". But I think this is
similar to the analogy of dealing with rogue nations. Going to war is
never actually off the table, but it's something that one really will
avoid. One doesn't need to threaten lawsuits (or war), but the fact
that lawsuits (and war) do exist and can be used, does live in the back
of minds of those that are not in compliance.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that this is nothing like making
Linux have a BSD license, but that GPL insists that people share, and
that's the intent of the license. Being in non-compliance isn't just
against the law, but also makes you look like a schmuck, and you can be
shamed for that. One isn't shamed for not sharing the BSD code, because
the BSD intent is do what you want, we'll just make more.

-- Steve