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 6737D25A for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 23:35:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hr2.samba.org (hr2.samba.org [144.76.82.148]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1186F123 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 23:35:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:35:21 -0700 From: Jeremy Allison To: Linus Torvalds Message-ID: <20160827233521.GC6717@jeremy-acer> Reply-To: Jeremy Allison References: <20160826193331.GA29084@jra3> <87inunxf14.fsf@ebb.org> <20160827162655.GB27132@kroah.com> <20160827230210.GA6717@jeremy-acer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: "Bradley M. Kuhn" , 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 Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 04:13:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Quite frankly, after having watched a few videos of Bradley talking > about what he does and _why_ he does it, I really would never want to > have him or the SFC represent Linux in court. Ever. Not unless they > make it very clear that their agenda has changed. So the thing I think you're missing here, is your own agument about enlightened "self interest". Yes, Bradley and Conservancy have an agenda. They represent us (Samba) when that agenda and self interest *align with ours*. When they don't, nothing happens (remember they only act on our behalf). It's just like development - they want one legal thing, you want another. Only when the two align do you work together. So far it's worked very well (just like Linux :-).