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

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

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:37:45AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> 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."

Let's not get into crazy details here...

There's tons of things folks say or do publicly which make companies cringe,
even our best of maintainers have quite a lot of pictures on the Internet giving the
middle finger to them...

At one point I considered giving up on Linux kernel development because of the
actions of *one* developer. But I did not. I decided these are growing pains
and I really feel we can overcome these stupid qualms.

So yes, tact. I am saying we learn from these mistakes and move on.

That is what I meant by growing pains.

> 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...

Makes sense.

> > > 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!

Since we have a group of like minded folks who care about freedom, given no
other alternative existed -- I preferred to join and ask them to tone it down
if I saw it fit.

> 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.

I *completely* understand the concern, and I choose to join to help ensure
that no lunacy is done in the name of kernel developers. Although I already
trusted the kernel developers that were part of the alliance, I sympathized
with other developers and users who were having issues getting source code
to products they purchase. I decided it is best to join and voice in my
best capacity what I believe is rational for our community.

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

Sure thing.

> 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, so far Conservancy has been *extremely* keen on ensuring they listen to
the developers that are part of the alliance so I trust them with what they are
doing. I wish I could tell you to what extent Conservancy is serious about
this... but then I'd break confidentiality :) If you trust me -- then please
trust that they listen and work with our expressed interests and goals.

If they don't -- I'll ask you then for alternative representatives that are out
there which might also care not only for Linux but also for both the developer
and user freedoms that come with Linux.

  Luis