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 E015925A for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 04:40:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hr2.samba.org (hr2.samba.org [144.76.82.148]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6329DAC for ; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 04:40:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 21:40:35 -0700 From: Jeremy Allison To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20160828044034.GC8742@jeremy-acer> Reply-To: Jeremy Allison References: <20160826193331.GA29084@jra3> <87inunxf14.fsf@ebb.org> <20160827162655.GB27132@kroah.com> <20160827230210.GA6717@jeremy-acer> <1472354316.2440.65.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1472354316.2440.65.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Cc: "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 09:18:36PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 16:02 -0700, Jeremy Allison via Ksummit-discuss > wrote: > > The GPL allows legal penalties for non-compliance. We > > know this as there have already been such. > > > > Your project has been enourmously successful - more so > > than any other Free Software project in the world. And it > > did so under the GPL. > > > > 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. > > This might also be a core issue. I agree this is a core issue. > I believe everyone participating in this debate agrees there >should be consequences for non-compliance. That isn't clear to me at all, unless "ask again, try and be nicer" counts as a consequence. I don't believe that it does. > However, some people believe that the emphasis on "legal penalties" > produces an escalating atmosphere that precludes other avenues. "legal penalties" are a last, worst option - that I think everyone agrees with. The core issue to me is - should "legal penalties" *ever* be an option ? My opinion (for Samba, the only area my opinion matters and feel free to tell me to bugger off a Linux kernel list and I'll shut up) is that they should. I would have sued the bastards renaming my code and adding a license manager for example :-). I'm only glad I didn't have to.