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

["Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org>]

James Bottomley wrote earlier today:
> Knowing there's a threat of legal action lurking in the background produces
> far different conversations because it puts the other party on the legal
> defensive ... for all of us

Your primary argument centers around the idea that the mere *existence* of
*anyone* willing to file a lawsuit about a Linux violation irreparably
thwarts your ability to exercise your unique compliance-seeking skills.  Greg
has made similar arguments.  If that's true, then I wonder what time frame
you're talking about, since Harald has been filing lawsuits since 2004, and
has filed so many about Linux.  Conservancy has filed none; rather, we helped
fund and provided some logistical support for Christoph's lawsuit.

> Well, my recollection of the first conversation about VMware in San Diego
> airport in 2012 was you telling me you wanted to go after them and me
> giving you all my concerns around the possibility of an adverse judgement.

That was just a short time after we discovered a Linux violation was also
present in addition to VMware's BusyBox violation [0], a full two years
before Christoph became involved and three years before he chose to sue.
(This timeline has been in the VMware lawsuit FAQ on Conservancy's website
since the lawsuit was filed [1].)  That FAQ makes reference to the fact
that we sought assistance from "every industry contact we had".

You were among those industry contacts.  That very LinuxCon week you mention,
I encouraged you, Greg, and Jim Zemlin to do whatever you could to attempt to
get VMware to DTRT and comply with GPL.  I specifically asked you and Jim to
reach out to them, since as LF Board members, you would have direct contacts
with VMware, as a member company that funds LF.

Also, I believed, as you say, that you were skilled in some types of
negotiation that I am not.  (I specifically recall saying to you as I left
for my flight: "we've just discovered the violation, so there's time; please
do what you can in the meantime".)  The large group of copyright holders who
were unhappy at VMware's violation then waited for years for all of you to
work your magic, but VMware never complied.  I now understand...
> the problem would have been that your terms aren't mine.

... that whole part of the exercise was moot because you probably didn't want
VMware to comply, anyway.  That explains a lot; thank you for telling me.

> On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 19:02 -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > Everyone here is talented and has different skills; please don't
> > assume that yours are the only ones that produce value and good
> > results.
James Bottomley wrote:
> I'm wasn't, but I get the impression you do.

Your impression is incorrect.  I have great respect for your skill in
achieving GPL compliance outcomes in the specific industry sectors where
you've deployed them.  I believe your stories of all the successes you've had
and told me about over the years, and I thank you for that work.

[0] VMware's BusyBox violation was resolved *without* litigation, and VMware
    still ships, AFAIK, a GPL-compliant BusyBox as part of their products
    today -- yet another counter example to the incorrect memes about BusyBox
    and its enforcement in this thread.

[1] https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html
--
   -- bkuhn
========================================================================
Become a Conservancy Supporter today: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter