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

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 09:17:31PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 08:15:28PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > <fixing Jeremy's email address, Luis, your email client broke it...>
> 
> Stupid mutt, sorry!
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 07:20:33PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 06:45:40PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > That brings up a question, who exactly is the SFC representing here?
> > > 
> > > I've come out:
> > > 
> > > http://www.do-not-panic.com/2016/02/im-part-of-conservancys-gpl-compliance.html
> > > 
> > > Others have as well. We don't force people to come out though obviously, so its
> > > optional. Some folks would prefer their association to remain private. That's
> > > a right they should have.
> > 
> > It's something you would "loose" if you actually file for something.
> > And for the SFC to approach a company with a vague "we have random
> > copyrights, give us the code!" that message is horrid!
> 
> Growing pains.

Huh?  What do you mean by this, the SFC has been working on doing this
for _years_.  They have been doing this for other projects for probably
over a decade now.  You don't start approaching companies and then go
"oops, sorry, still learning how to do this, never mind!"  You also don't
go around in public saying crap like "corporations are evil!" and then
show up on a company's doorstep saying "just kidding, please work with
us, we are friendly, trust us."

It's as if you went and hired the law firm of Dewey, Cheetham & Howe,
and expected that they _not_ do what they had been doing for years and
years before that, just because you were now their client.

That's NOT how you pick someone to be your representative.  It looks
badly on you, and of course it looks horrid on the community you are a
part of.

Again, as Linus said, appearances matter.  And you can't just blow off
public statements with the "but I said it from my personal, not my
corporation which I founded, email account."

As IBM drilled into me many many times when I worked for them, employees
of a corporation reflect directly on how the corporation is viewed by
others, no matter if you are the president, or an engineer, when you are
in public.  I think there is even some legal rules about that somewhere
as well...

> > Again, the SFC puts the GPL before Linux,
> 
> That's news to me. I think everyone on the alliance would have a fit if
> this were true. So please stop equating Bradley's own sentiments to that
> of the alliance's. If that's the message folks get then we need to correct
> this.

WHAT???

Bradley has said this to me, and many others, directly!  He founded the
SFC and is responsible for setting the direction of it and picking and
choosing what it will do, as well as deciding who will help him run it.
To ignore his public, and private, statements about something like this
is folly.

If you want legal representation for kernel license issues, great, but
pick someone that doesn't go around publicly saying crap like this, as
again, it reflects directly on you!

Luis, I trust you when you say you want Linux to succeed, as it's backed
up by years and years of your hard work and dedication and public
statements.  But I don't trust your representative, as he has explicitly
stated that he doesn't care.  That's what started this whole long
email-thread-from-hell, his statement that we have to "enforce in the
courts or give up on the GPL."  That's toxic to Linux as both me and
Linus have pointed out.

People will tell you who they are if you listen to them.  Please listen.

I suggest you get a different representative, there are many out there
that I know of that do care about the future of Linux, and have backed
that up with years of work toward that goal.  I encourage you work with
them instead, as it seems that your representative doesn't seem to share
the same feelings about the future of _your_ project as you do.

thanks,

greg k-h