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

From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
	"Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org>,
	".jra"@samba.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL defense issues
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:55:42 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160828125542.7oejzcbpeozkrq3k@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160828042454.GA8742@jeremy-acer>

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 09:24:54PM -0700, Jeremy Allison via Ksummit-discuss wrote:
> 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.

For the record, I believe there can be a case for the shiny red
button.  I just want Linus, and not the SFC (or some --- as admitted
by the SFC --- minority set of developers), to be the one who decides
when it's appropriate to push it.

I've said it before, and I've said it again.  For me, this is much
more about a project governance issue.  We don't let random pissed off
army officers decide when to start World War III.  Similarly Linux has
establish consensus processes that take into accout *all* of the
stakeholder, which yes, includes the those "evil corporations" that
Bradley loves to bash so much in his conference talks.  (Both Linus,
Greg, and I have alluded to Bradley's talks, because fortunately, they
are available on YouTube.  And we've been looking at them, and then
comparing them to what has been claimed to be the SFC's position by
Bradley, Karen, and yourself.)

The SFC seems to be willing to take on a small subset of developers
and seems to have asserted "we will do what our clients tell us to
do".  We might not or might not be able to stop the SFC, just as there
are limits to what we could do to stop Patrick McHardy.

But Linus has stated pretty clearly what his preferences are, and if
the SFC is going to 100% back the position Bradley has taken in his
linux.conf.au talk vis-a-vis "we have to take on the kernel module
question in as many legal venues as possible" and "having exhausted
Busybox because companies have switched to Toybox due to the
litigation risks, Linux is the next great battleground for the GPL"
--- then perhaps it's understandable why a number of kernel developers
aren't going to trust the SFC's agenda and motives.

					- Ted