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

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@coreos.com> wrote:
>
> And yet Linksys were still in violation (even on the WRT54GL!) in
> 2008, resulting in a lawsuit (which they settled). That was after two
> and a half years of quiet negotiation between the FSF and Linksys.
> People had raised a stink. Discussions happened. Linksys didn't come
> into compliance until the suit was filed, and to this day they
> continue to distribute Linux-based routers and provide the source.
>
> Which part of this was inappropriate? What should have been done instead?

So note how I said earlier that it's not an entirely black-and-white thing.

I do think that there is some final point where lawyers do need to get
involved. But it really should be seen as a last effort thing. It's
the nuclear option.

It is *not* something we should be belligerent about, and something
you use as a threat. It is very much not a "we can all decide to give
up on the GPL, or we can enforce it in Courts".

It's essentially echoing "if you're not with us, you are against us".
It's a completely false dichotomy, and sane people should resist that
kind of illogical thinking and behavior.

It is simply not a valid argument for going to war. It never has been.

And the thing is, I think that the reasons to bring in lawyers have
weakened markedly over time. I'm sure you remember back when some
people used to argue that the GPL was invalid and unenforceable. It
was a completely bullshit argument, and had absolutely no sane
thinking behind it, but it definitely existed.

For the people who haven't been around enough, just google for it.
That insane argument has been made.

Nobody makes that argument any more. The GPL is obviously enforceable
and that it's simply not an issue. Legal departments *know* it is
enforceable.

And that's part of a bigger (and good) pattern: people actually know
and understand the GPL, and there are tons and tons of companies that
really believe in it. Lawsuits aren't even "educational" any more.

We've also seen how even successful lawsuits haven't actually helped
the project involved. So there was certainly an education there too -
for the developer side.

At the same time, when we've obviously convinced people the GPL is
serious and real, I'm actually seeing *more* noise to go to war, not
less. That makes no sense.

We solved the whole perception issue, and there is no question
what-so-ever that the GPL is enforceable, but instead of making some
people happier, to some o them it's a sign that "now we need to take
the fight to the next level".

That BS. That's completely idiotic thinking. We've *won*. People know
that not only is the GPL a valid license, they see and acknowledge
that it's a very successful model of development (another thing that
certainly was not universally acknowledged).

These days we only have *more* to lose, and less upside.

As a result, we should be much *less* inclined to make legal threats,
since so much of the industry has been convinced. Not all, no, but the
GPL has actually become an accepted license inside a lot of companies.
Some of those companies used to rant against it and call it "cancer".

I'm sure you've heard the term "GPL maximalist". It's not a pretty
thing, and it's hurting us. We were successful exactly because we were
*not* maximalists.

We absolutely should fight that fringe movement.

                  Linus