From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751198AbdJWHuQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Oct 2017 03:50:16 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:58140 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750746AbdJWHuP (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Oct 2017 03:50:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:50:22 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Pavel Nikulin Cc: Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Documentation: Add a file explaining the requested Linux kernel license enforcement policy Message-ID: <20171023075022.GA2821@kroah.com> References: <20171020192519.78772151@alans-desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 10:16:12PM +0300, Pavel Nikulin wrote: > If you say that your lawyers have comprehensively researched that, > I can't say they did a good job. Is there a open source knowledgable lawyer that you recommend we work with in place of the ones that were consulted for this statement? Remember, get two lawyers in a room, and you now have 3 opinions :) I know that not everyone we consulted agreed with everything in the document, but that's to be expected. However, they all agreed that for the issue we are currently facing, this statement will make a difference and help resolve the issue. If you don't agree with this, that's great, don't sign onto the agreement. But as you don't seem to be part of our community in the first place, I don't really understand your concern here at all. thanks, greg k-h