From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23E3F305 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 08:06:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD2D4ED for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 08:06:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shinybook.infradead.org ([2001:8b0:10b:1:e6ce:8fff:fe1f:f2c0]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ZBISb-00038n-5j for ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:06:05 +0000 Message-ID: <1435997161.3324.33.camel@infradead.org> From: David Woodhouse To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 09:06:01 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL enforcement actions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I'm slightly loath to bring this up but I think it does need doing... There are various people involved with GPL enforcement actions for the kernel, and there seems to be a lot of misinformation about it all. Some parties are portrayed as acting excessively and inappropriately — and with dubious motives — to enforce the GPL; others as being rabidly *against* enforcement and effectively wanting a BSD-licensed free-for -all because that supports their corporate interests. None of these portrayals are entirely accurate, I'm sure, and the histrionics don't really do anyone any good. I'm sure we won't reach a universal consensus, but it would be useful to get the interested parties together and have a coherent discussion about it, so that everyone can have a proper understanding of the fact, and also a reasonable idea of the 'feeling in the room' regarding if, when and how we require compliance with the GPL. -- dwmw2