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 01A5725A for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 04:25:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hr2.samba.org (hr2.samba.org [144.76.82.148]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34948190 for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 04:25:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 21:24:54 -0700 From: Jeremy Allison To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20160828042454.GA8742@jeremy-acer> Reply-To: Jeremy Allison References: <20160826193331.GA29084@jra3> <87inunxf14.fsf@ebb.org> <20160827162655.GB27132@kroah.com> <87bn0dnc6f.fsf@ebb.org> <1472348609.2440.37.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1472348609.2440.37.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Cc: .jra@samba.org, "Bradley M. Kuhn" , Linus Torvalds , 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 07:43:29PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > > Heh, well, if I called bullshit, I'd lose my reputation for politeness > (although perhaps Linus would finally come to respect me). Let me just > point at that your 0.57% or however you define it, is why no > corporation currently trusts you or wants to talk to you unless forced > by their lawyers. Without mutual trust, there's no basis for > negotiation, so all your attempts at compliance are overshadowed by > this end game. In an discussion, when you accuse your oponent of flat-out lying and being untrustworthy there's no place left to go. Let's not do that. I don't think it's helpful. However, "no corporation currently trusts you or wants to talk to you unless forced by their lawyers" is inaccurate (note I don't think you're lying, just mistaken here). My employer is a large funder of Conservancy (check their funding spreadsheet for details), and I promise you we talk without legal requests to do so (even though Karen managed to crash the badging system here last time she visited :-). > Your inability to recognise that there are other methods beyond holding > out this 0.57% club, and that a lot of other people have achieved > significant compliance and even community contributions using them, is > why your statements generate such a lot of strong reactions. It > reminds me a lot of the 70s and 80s "Mr President, under what > conditions would you be willing to press the nuclear button?" which > isn't really a world I want to go back to. That isn't the question that's being asked though. The question that is being asked is "should there be a nuclear button *at all* ?". Your opinion on that is clear and I understand why you hold it. There are many other developers who hold the same opinion, but lots of them work on FreeBSD not Linux. Respectfully, I don't agree with you. Greg and Ted seem to agree with you, Linus (like me) seems to imagine there can be a case for that shiny red button. To be honest I never would have put you down as a CND supporter (but I suppose all those years you spent in a tent at Greenham Common should have given me a hint :-).