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

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:10:29AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 18:15 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 08:55:42AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > If you are trying to equate "random pissed off officers" with those 
> > kernel developers part of the SFC alliance, then I have to say that 
> > is perhaps one of the most stupid misrepresentations of members of 
> > SFC that I have heard so far. Unless of course your statement is 
> > educated, you know all members part of SFC and have asked each one
> > why they joined.
> 
> Given that the names aren't public, that's somewhat of an impossible
> test.

Then best not equate them to angry officers. Its no different than trying to
equate those opposed to modern responsible community GPL enforcement with
corporate lobbyists. I'd be really, really stupid if I used that analogy.

> The problem Ted has is that a tiny minority of the copyright holders
> can launch a GPL action under the law today with out regard to the
> opinions of the majority.

This thread seems to reveal that even Linus was aware of the Vmware law suit.
Other than this it seems due process, in whatever capacity we have, is being
followed. In lack of any process being available, and given the interest of
those pestering SFC, what else can be done but to gather folks, discuss,
and try to reach some sort of transparent process ? What else can be done
better? That's the whole point of the discussion and engagement.

Simply dismissing all the effort possible by assuming Bradley is in charge is
IMHO understandable but also doing a huge disservice to Karen's own efforts.
Moving past that, if one can trust that he's not, then the next question is --
what due process would we like in place. Linus would prefer a proactive
approach, and I'm all for it. Always have been.  But that still dismisses any
proper due process left in place as last resort which we can settle on for the
community.

If a proactive approach can avoid another stupid lingering Vmware type of case,
then lets hear it. Why didn't it work and what can we do better ? In fact,
other than few key developer having impact at companies, what other effort is
there? I'm one of the few that took the plunge into a silicon company and
did my best to educate, and I think the company learned the benefits of
upstream, but working at silicon companies is *hard* and takes a lot of
patience. These days I know more developers that simply prefer to do contract
work than work full time or lobby. Then we have things like Linaro. That
helps but still leave open to question what proactive measure are in place.

> So could one person try to set up a
> permanent fork of linux; What holds it together isn't legal principles,
> it's sound governance, which is why Ted says this is a governance
> issue.

I agree with the governance thing obviously. The analogy used was just dumb.

> The analogy is to try to get you to understand, not to insult you by
> equating members of the SFC coalition with random pissed off generals.

The analogy does nothing to help. The discussion we are having, yes.

> > If you don't know then please educate yourself on this as reading 
> > this type of incoherent nonsense being spouted out is just offending 
> > and does nothing to help.
> 
> OK, so leaving the rhetoric aside, do you understand why we see this as
> an unsolved governance issue?  Solving it correctly is a hard problem,
> because it involves finding some mechanism for bringing GPL violators
> into line that everyone (including those in the SFC coalition) can
> support.

Of course, that's the whole point ! How do we resolve this ?

  Luis